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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » White Christmas - is this a "t.v. print"? (Page 3)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4

Author Topic: White Christmas - is this a "t.v. print"? Mathew Molloy Master Film Handler Posts: 357 From: The Santa Cruz Mountains Registered: Nov 2000 posted 01-01-2006 11:52 PM                     Sean, I didn't notice any pan & scan and the print was all polyester. The photo of the 35mm frame is backed by a piece of lens tissue so it looks like crap but apart from the focus problem, the colors were pretty good - it didn't look as dupey as say, some 16mm or Super8 prints. We had a great Wonderful Life print from Paramount in November but we're now running Raiders Of The Lost Ark. It's not complete junk but it is by far, the worst non-Criterion print - and the worst color film we've played this past year (about 75 revival films total). Quite a few scratches both base-side and emulsion. We wanted to play this sooner but were told their 'good' print wasn't available until now. I'd hate to see their bad prints! As this is only our third film from Paramount we've got our fingers crossed our upcoming prints will be better off.  |  IP: Logged John Eickhof Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 588 From: Wendell, ID USA Registered: Jan 2000 posted 01-06-2006 10:50 AM                        Don't forget, the trigger tones on perspecta also raised and lowered the gain on each channel. I have heard the sound through Dick's system, it is unbeleivable for its age and design!!  |  IP: Logged Tao Yue Expert Film Handler Posts: 209 From: Princeton, NJ Registered: Apr 2001 posted 01-18-2006 08:20 PM                        Matthew -- was the Raiders print in digital sound? Sometimes there are bad prints which are indistinguishable in the database since not enough metadata is kept.  |  IP: Logged Mathew Molloy Master Film Handler Posts: 357 From: The Santa Cruz Mountains Registered: Nov 2000 posted 01-18-2006 08:39 PM                     Tao - the Raiders print was listed as "Dolby" on reels 1 & 2 and "SR" on 3-6. No digital. We ran the film Dolby A and the theatre owner felt that sounded best. This print was from 2004 and Paramount was not happy to hear it hadn't fared too well.  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 01-18-2006 08:57 PM                     quote: John Eickhof Don't forget, the trigger tones on perspecta also raised and lowered the gain on each channel. And they could also be modulated to give a reverberant effect with fast cross modulating between tones that created a pseudo stereo effect. A correct working Perspecta system is mighty impressive.... in a way far more impressive than SDDS, SRD, and DTS combined. Mark  |  IP: Logged Paul Linfesty Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1383 From: Bakersfield, CA, USA Registered: Nov 1999 posted 01-18-2006 09:04 PM                     quote: Mark Gulbrandsen A correct working Perspecta system is mighty impressive.... in a way far more impressive than SDDS, SRD, and DTS combined. Oh, pleeze!  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 01-18-2006 09:54 PM                     Oh Paul... come on... that was meant as a set up for Brad...... now you've ruined it But I will stick to the mighty impressive part..... Mark  |  IP: Logged System Notices Forum Watchdog / Soup Nazi Posts: 215 Registered: Apr 2004 posted 12-26-2007 02:28 AM                 It has been 706 days since the last post.  |  IP: Logged Carl Martin Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1424 From: Oakland, CA, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 12-26-2007 02:28 AM                        these lousy w.c. prints are still in circulation... saw one 3 days ago in el cerrito.  |  IP: Logged Adam Holland Film Handler Posts: 66 From: Oak Grove, LA Registered: Nov 2007 posted 12-26-2007 09:24 PM                     We showed this movie, at the Fiske in Oak Grove, La. (Pop 2,687) as well, on December 1 and 2, but we rented the DVD from Swank Motion Pictures, as at this stage it is all we can show until we get some newer 35mm equipment. The movie drew a good crowd considering we only were showing it a 2 p.m. On the Saturday after the parade we prolly had 150 and on the Sunday showing around 100. Though this crowd looks empty in a 750 seat theatre we were pleased with the turn out.  |  IP: Logged Ron Funderburg Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 814 From: Chickasha, Oklahoma, USA Registered: Nov 2007 posted 12-26-2007 10:33 PM                        The film was turned sideways on VistaVision when run on a VistaVision projector you had a picture that was 8 sprockets wide so the picture was somewhere between 85/1 and 2/1 it was photographed at the 2/1 ratio but the cameras were marked inside so they tried to hold action inside the standard picture sizes of the day (what a shame wider is better) so that when they printed it on a standard 35MM it could be shown in aspect format from from 1.33/1 through 1.66/1, 1.85/1 up to 2/1. According to Paramount the standard 35MM plays best in ratios close to 1.85/1. I have seen a couple of pictures (way back when I was a kid) that were actually shown in VistaVision it had a really sharp picture if my itty bitty mind worked well then. Oh well!  |  IP: Logged Frank Angel Film God Posts: 5305 From: Brooklyn NY USA Registered: Dec 1999 posted 12-28-2007 01:46 AM                        quote: Ron Funderburg According to Paramount the standard 35MM plays best in ratios close to 1.85/1. That's just some jerk at Paramount not wanting to have to admit that they've got prints that look better at 1.66 but hardly any theatres have the proper lensing and plates for 1.66 so they just say it looks better at 1.85 because that's how commercial theatres are going to project it. Happens all the time. Miramax would make deals to distribute foreign films here in the US and these films no question were shot 1.66 and meant to be projected at 1.66 (Europe retains that as the preferred AR over 1.85); they would scribe subtitles at 1.85 and call it a 1.85 film. And then you wonder why when you project it at exactly 1.85, you either cut off part of someone's head or cut off part of the subtitles. I know VistaVision was a great format -- great resolution and a much more elegant format than CinemaScope which was its intended competition. Only trouble was, IMHO, it was sheer stupidity to take that great width and crowd everything so it would play, not at 1.85 or even 1.66, but at freakin 1.37. This idea trying to make a format work for everything is just idiocy and something I bet the suits thought up and not the cinematographers and the R& D guys who came up with the film running horizontally thing. Paramount had the right stuff when they said CinemaScope just look too much like three day old vomit to shoot their product on so they came up with the brilliant idea of turning 35mm film on its side -- hey, IMAX thought it so good they did it with 70mm. And that turned out not too shabby. Then Paramount converted to assholeism and laid it all to waste by trying to make it all things to all exhibitors. "You want 2:1? -- fine, we got that; you want 1.85 or 1.66? -- hell, we got that too. What did you say? You are still running Academy 1.37? No problem....no problem....we got ya damn 1.37 too!!" That one-size-fits-all was WORSE than what happened when cinematographers were forced to started shooting Panavision but keeping everything safe for godawful cable and television....it's the aesthetic equivalent of a rhino turd. A film CAN'T be composed for BOTH 2:1 AND 1.37, I don't care how many reticles there are in the camera viewfined and if the cameraman has got a dozen voodoo trinkets hanging from his nose.  |  IP: Logged Stephen Furley Film God Posts: 3059 From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England Registered: May 2002 posted 12-28-2007 03:37 AM                     quote: Frank Angel so they came up with the brilliant idea of turning 35mm film on its side Like most things it wasn't a new idea; it had previously been done by Alberini (sp?) about thirty years previously; he actually used a 10-perf frame for his system, and since it had no track the full width between perforations was used, giving an aspect ratio of something like 1.66. There were horizontal systems before this, but I don't know of any that used 35mm film. Wide film, multiple films, anamorphic lenses, horizontally-running film, masking down a standard frame, and using a two-perf camera pull-down had all been used long before they were "re-invented" in the '50s. There's almost nothing new in this world.  |  IP: Logged Jack Theakston Master Film Handler Posts: 411 From: New York, USA Registered: Sep 2007 posted 12-28-2007 03:41 PM                     And it didn't matter anyway. 99.999999999999% of prints were going to be standard 35mm. That was the point of VV-- finer grained 35mm prints, not large format. Right off the bat, you can't run VV at 1.37. The film is hard-matted to 1.5:1 or so. The first year of VistaVision, most of the titles were composed at 1.66:1, with loose headroom on medium shots to accommodate running at 1.85:1. This was dropped not long after when most theaters in the US standardized to 1.85. The idea of making the system applicable for multiple ratios was to be flexible for exhibitors that were installing wide screens under various circumstances. I've got Paramount's documentation in regards to "if your theater has a steep rake from the projection booth... run VistaVision films at 1.85:1" etc, etc. By the way, I don't recommend reproducing the Perspecta tracks on anything but an original integrator. The new cards for decoding the system are poorly designed, and often lack the gain control that was half of the system.  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 12-28-2007 04:09 PM                     All the VistaVision cameras from the first Stein conversion prototype that was used to film White Xmas used Leica camera lenses which to this day are still some of the very best lenses ever made. Mark  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4

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.