Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Threading Up a Simplex 35

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Film Handlers' Forum » Threading Up a Simplex 35 (Page 4)

This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Author

Topic: Threading Up a Simplex 35

Manny Knowles
"What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???"

Posts: 4247
From: Bloomington, IN, USA
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 03-29-2005 11:59 PM

Come on, Scott... We're talking about 35mm commercial releases and you know it! [Wink]

Note to Phil... I'm shocked you didn't comment on the fact that the word "but" follows the word "prick." [Eek!]

| IP: Logged

Matthew Peters
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 179
From: Glen Waverley, Melbourne, Australia
Registered: Nov 2002

posted 03-30-2005 12:03 AM

Reminds me of the time our aperture plate change over mechanism broke and we had to do it by hand, I forgot to move the plate from the scope position back to the 1:1.85 setting. I was stunned for a few secconds trying to work out why the image in our biggest house was on the roof, screen and floor with-out looking distorted.

| IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 03-30-2005 12:07 AM

Ohhh....I got that one Manny! One From the Heart was indeed composed for 1.33, if not 1.37.

If you ever see some of the "making of" documentaries on films, you can also see on the director's camera monitor (video monitor that sees what the camera sees) that they have either taped off or otherwise line off the action area versus the extraneous area. If you are projecting beyond .446 inches high on a domestic "FLAT" film then you are showing image that was not intended to be show, period.

| IP: Logged

Manny Knowles
"What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???"

Posts: 4247
From: Bloomington, IN, USA
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 03-30-2005 12:09 AM

Was One From The Heart released as full-frame or was it "pillar-boxed" within a 1.85:1 frame?

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 03-30-2005 12:49 AM

I remember a movie with Sally Field, can't remember the title but it was in the late 70s. In one scene she was shown in the shower, but you only saw her head and shoulders on screen. The printed image was full-frame, and one night my male urges took over and I wanted to see what she was "wearing" in the shower, so I rewound the reel on the bench by hand, found the scene, and turns out, she was topless! In a PG movie! (She looked good, too!)

So there are definitely things in there that are not supposed to be on screen, and it's been that way for years and is not likely to change.

Bob -- why not center the Studio Logo vertically? Then your whole movie will be OK.

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 03-30-2005 01:06 AM

Same goes for "Doc Hollywood", the runaway blockbuster smash hit that made billions for Michael J. Fox. Not only was the movie the best evar, but there was a scene where the chicky-poo came out of a lake or something. You could see her boobs on the frame and they were meant to be seen. The movie was not "R" but PG-13. Anyway on that scene if you "frame down" you can see her bush in all it's glory!

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

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

posted 03-30-2005 03:02 AM

This is why I doubted that the Regal techs set up Robert's auditoriums "wrong" when selecting lenses, setting masking and cutting aperture plates. While they may not be spot on perfect 1.85, odds are they're really close and the problem at hand is an operator issue.

Robert, since (fortunately) Regal doesn't have that weird policy of cutting off the green bands on trailers, simply frame up on those so that the lettering is centered vertically and then keep your paws off of the framer for the rest of the movie. While not all green bands are perfectly centered, they are ten times over more accurate than just guessing at where the proper composition is (which has just been proved that even someone with 25 years of experience doesn't).

This is also an excellent example FOR locking the framing knobs down in a mainstream multiplex. While art house fare has it's own interesting set of problems, I have ran for years in mainstream multiplexes with dead centered and locked down framing knobs without a hint of a problem. Best of all, it prevents projectionists who don't understand the concept of 1.85 matting from screwing up a presentation.

By the way what was that weird film about the bald guy who had magical powers from lightening or something released in the late 90s? Anyway it was a PG flat film and I had filled in on an evening shift at a theater I had only worked once before and as I was walking around checking focus I saw a scene where the bald guy was getting picked on by bullies in a field. I walked up to the port window right as they ripped off his clothes and low and behold guess what was swinging in the wind? You guessed it! Yet another example of why framing is so crucial. Another one that comes to mind is the Jurassic Park films. If you frame Robert-style, ALL of the effect shots will have the top half of the projected screen matted off with black! [Eek!]

| IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 03-30-2005 07:26 AM

To the best of my knowledge, One from the Heart was printed to the academy aperture. It was the film the really broke Zoetrope (Coppola's company) but launched the whole concept of using video to compose a film on the fly. I remember not only having to lens up for it but also having to mask the screen for it (hang additional masking theatres that could not close down to 1.37).

The name of Brad's film is on the tip of my tongue but I can't quite remember it...it is something like Ash, Ghost, Smoked...or something.

| IP: Logged

Darryl Spicer
Film God

Posts: 3250
From: Lexington, KY, USA
Registered: Dec 2000

posted 03-30-2005 09:09 AM

quote: Mike Blakesley
I remember a movie with Sally Field, can't remember the title but it was in the late 70s

Would it have been "Norma Rae" by chance....

quote: Brad Miller
By the way what was that weird film about the bald guy who had magical powers from lightening or something released in the late 90s?

That one was called "Powder"

| IP: Logged

Martin McCaffery
Film God

Posts: 2481
From: Montgomery, AL
Registered: Jun 99

posted 03-30-2005 12:22 PM

Yes, Brad, arthouse fare as all sorts of problems. I set the projectors to RP-40 with each new film, but inevitably have to go up and tweek the framing for the composition and/or subtitles. I've had plenty of films, mostly foreign, but not always, that had to be adjusted with each reel. Always entertaining are the ones with changing masking

The opposite of the Sally Fields adventure is the pre-legal age Christina Ricci movie The Opposite of Sex. There is a scene where she is sitting next to the pool, supposedly topless. If you frame up too far you see she's wearing a strapless fleshtone nipple protecting top.

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

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

posted 03-30-2005 02:51 PM

Here is what standard SMPTE 195-2000 says:

quote:
A.4
Typical aspect ratios for nonanamorphic theatrical projection
For aesthetic and practical reasons, theatrical projection
may present 35-mm images in such a manner that the full
width of the projectable area is shown but the projected
height is less than maximum. Photography designed primarily
for theatrical exhibition recognizes this and is composed
for the more elongated rectangles. Several aspect ratios for
the final projected picture are recognized through usage
(see table A.1).

In every case, it is in tended that the projected area be
located symmetrically about the horizontal centerline of
the maximum projectable area.

To help ensure correct vertical centering (framing) of the
projected image, hard-matte printing may be used in producing the duplicate negative used for release printing of theatrical
prints. A hard matte with an image height of at least 0.505
in (12.83 mm) may be used for all style A aspect ratios
(1.66:1 or greater). Note that prints intended for a style C
aspect ratio (1.37:1) will normally have an image height of
at least 0.630 in (16.00 mm) as specified in SMPTE 59. In
all cases, the framelines on the print shall essentially be
opaque.
It is recommended that pictures designed to be shown at
aspect ratios other than those specified in this standard be
so marked in a conspicuous manner. The television leader
(described in SMPTE 55) provides for aspect ratio identification
on frames 6-10.

A.5 Image area on original negative

Use of camera aperture dimensions other than those stated
in SMPTE 59 is discouraged. Film users are reminded that
many features composed for wide-screen aspect ratio will
be shown later on television. Use of a hard matte in the
camera will require substantial cropping of the film horizontally
when the film is transferred to television, and severely
limits the use of a print made from the negative.
Good practice dictates using the 1.37:1 style A camera
aperture of SMPTE 59, while composing for the desired
theatrical projection aspect ratio. Care should be taken to
exclude extraneous items or action from the photographed
image area which may show in the television scanned
area.

You can purchase SMPTE standards here:

http://www.smpte.org/smpte_store/standards/

Note that films whose master positives and duplicate negatives are printed using continuous contact printers will have the framelines that were on the original negative, and NOT a "hard matte". Making a duplicate negative with a hard matte would require use of a step printer or digital intermediate.

| IP: Logged

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

Posts: 8367
From: Nampa, Idaho, USA
Registered: Nov 2004

posted 04-01-2005 03:49 AM

quote:
Maybe every flat feature should have the studio logo printed in letterbox format. Trainer to trainee: "See that? Make sure it's centered!!"

...this brings up an intesting side topic here on 1.85/1 "letterboxed" trailers/features:

For the OF'ers:

Let's go back to 1956. "The Ten Commandments" (actually anything filmed and released in VistaVision) - do we remember, on each reel change at the beginning of each reel-including the famous "Red Paramount C.B. DeMille" logo, those little "cross" markings that were shown on the screen at the upper right hand corner, being that the frames were "hard matted" to the 1.75/1 ratio of VistaVision?

Lot of theatres were still shooting full frame 1.37/1 at the time in as well as full adjustable masked 2.35/1 Anamorphic ratios (and some using the rare 2.00/1 SuperScope ratios as well). Then the 1.85/1 apertures were cut for the presentations of VistaVision, and these "t" markings were to make sure of the proper framing of this presentation format.

The one theatre that I worked at, had full adjustable maskings from 1.37/1 flat, to 2.66/1, anamorphic full-mag presentations, with apertures of each size.

Thus, a question on this topic as well:

I just got done with the presentation of "Lemeny Snickets" and noticed, during buildups, that some of the scenes are in full frame 1.33/1, then when some scenes changes, the frame gets "hard matted" to 1.75/1. And these two different ratios goes back and forth throughout the feature. Would this be different cameras, or some sort of lab work techniques?

thx-Monte

| IP: Logged

Darryl Spicer
Film God

Posts: 3250
From: Lexington, KY, USA
Registered: Dec 2000

posted 04-01-2005 03:53 AM

quote: Monte L Fullmer
I just got done with the presentation of "Lemeny Snickets" and noticed, during buildups, that some of the scenes are in full frame 1.33/1, then when some scenes changes, the frame gets "hard matted" to 1.75/1. And these two different ratios goes back and forth throughout the feature. Would this be different cameras, or some sort of lab work techniques?

It could have been scenes that involved visual effects or CGI work.

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

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

posted 04-01-2005 04:42 AM

Just like my Jurassic Park example from earlier in this thread. Putting aside the blatant composition errors, just imagine how bad it would look for the matte bars to randomly turn up across the picture if presented out of frame. [Wink]

| IP: Logged

Brian Michael Weidemann
Expert cat molester

Posts: 944
From: Costa Mesa, CA United States
Registered: Feb 2004

posted 04-01-2005 06:05 AM

quote: Brad Miller
and low and behold guess what was swinging in the wind?

I forgot all about that! Yes, indeed, I have the same sort of story you have for that movie, Brad. I remember our framing was nowhere near OBVIOUSLY off, but I was in the auditorium when that scene played. And JUST visible at the bottom of the screen ...

If I recall, the dialog went something like they were making fun of him for being "bald down there", and clear as day we can see that that was not the case.

Some people at the theatre didn't believe it when I mentioned it. And since it was PG, we wouldn't dare misframe (accidentally or otherwise) that movie again, even as a joke. I had to point it out when I tore it down. The whole situation was amusing for us, but I have no idea who was in the audience.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5

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.