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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » The stupid are spreading their stupidness (Page 5)

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

Author Topic: The stupid are spreading their stupidness Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 07-20-2008 02:14 PM                     quote: After about 10 minutes it got so annoying that I thought that if I didn't ask for it to be corrected, I'd come away from that show not remembering much about the film but fixated on that f***ing frame line! Well its good to know I am not the only person who will hate a movie for something in the presentation like that. I also tend to fixate if the aperture is poorly cut, the anamorphic slightly skewed, a part of the image is a little out of focus or any other unnecessary distraction. By far the most common I find is that I will sit down and the trailers are a bit loud. Not TOO loud that it is painful, but a bit. Then the feature comes on and I have to get out of my seat and miss the first 5 minutes of the movie because the theater hasn't automated their fader to turn it up to a proper level and the projectionist is a lazy fucktard who isn't there when the show starts to turn it up manually. I would like to go on record AGAIN with the past prediction of mine that the trailer level committee would turn out to be a complete waste of time. Absolutely NOTHING preceptable changed volume-wise in the trailers. I was playing them at 4 ten years ago and I still play them at 4 now (both instances the feature plays at 7).  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 07-20-2008 05:13 PM                        Didn't they say their plan was to adjust trailer sound levels over a 5 year time period? How stupid is that? How do we get in contact with these people? I want to write them a letter.  |  IP: Logged Greg Anderson Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 766 From: Ogden Valley, Utah Registered: Nov 1999 posted 07-20-2008 06:26 PM                        Shouldn't the title of this thread say "stupidity" instead of "stupidness"? Otherwise, you know, it sounds kinda like this thread is, itself, spreading, you know, that stuff we don't want to spread.  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 07-20-2008 07:40 PM                     Somebody didn't get the joke. Should I edit the title to read "stoopidness"?  |  IP: Logged Andy Frodsham Expert Film Handler Posts: 238 From: Stoke on Trent, Staffs, UK Registered: Nov 2006 posted 07-21-2008 11:53 AM                     Also, along the same lines of irritating frameline problems, us art-house guys have to put-up with the additional issues posed by subtitles! My pet hate is seeing a picture on the screen where the printed subtitle droppers (the tails on letters like 'y' and 'g') are hanging off the screen (or on the bottom masking). In chageover houses, I also like to see that the subtitles are positioned at the same height across both machines.  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 07-21-2008 12:22 PM                     In the US...they are called "decenders." Most of our art houses that run subtitled films have 1.66 lenses that pretty much ensures that there are no cut off subtitles. The difference in height on the film is very small (.446 versus .497") but the difference in subtitle vs. headroom is pretty substantial. With rare exception, most films seem to be protected out to .497 (1.66:1) ratio. As for changeovers...well...yeah, both machines should be properly framed. Steve  |  IP: Logged Rick Raskin Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1100 From: Manassas Virginia Registered: Jan 2003 posted 07-21-2008 01:05 PM                     Anybody here remember the framing cues on "The Ten Commandments"?  |  IP: Logged Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 07-21-2008 01:42 PM                     (Hand up here ...ran an IB print back in 1972 on an unmasked screen..<bummer>..) they were about 3 seconds after the changeover and were six frame long. EDIT: excuse the Super8 B/W reduction of the opening trademark of this movie, yet one can make out these "F" framing cues (for the top horiz. line was for 1.66, the left horiz. line was for 1.85 and the lower horiz. line for 2.00/1 aperture openings) in the upper right corner of the frame where the normal changeover cues were at. (and on a side note: NEVER did I see a flat print look so sharp and clear...."Ten Commandments" could have easily been released in scope being shot in VistaVision by being matted to 2.35/1!) [ 07-22-2008, 05:25 AM: Message edited by: Monte L Fullmer ]  |  IP: Logged Blaine Young Master Film Handler Posts: 477 From: Kirkland, WA, USA Registered: Sep 2006 posted 07-22-2008 12:16 PM                     Yes, these are the original VistaVision framing queues? They are on the original negatives. In theory, I suppose, they would be in the same spot for each reel. Or did they vary from reel to reel, making adjustments necessary at each change-over? Of course, I'm assuming that threading was always done in frame - and shouldn't have to be adjusted at each start. [ 07-22-2008, 03:34 PM: Message edited by: Blaine Young ]  |  IP: Logged Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 07-22-2008 04:40 PM                     Yes, all 12 reels of this film had these markings at the beginning of each reel. There were three, or four sets of these six frame markings to ensure that the projectionist had his framing correctly per each changeover. (also, in color, the opening trademark was in a red hue with gold lettering. Plus, it was totally crisp and sharp to look at on the screen. The cues themselves were in gold whereas the rest of the cues in the feature were in black.) There's quite the article in the widescreen museum site on VistaVision that one could gain massive info on. Paramount had the right idea with this format- creating a widescreen picture using a flat camera lens so the depth of field was held intact. But as with Cinerama and Todd-AO, it became a costly process down the road and productions had to find a way to get things back in budget and find more effective ways to produce a film. EDIT: In the link sent down below by Mr. Gabel , there were two sets of framing cues - not the quantity that I mentioned being that was over 30yr ago when I ran this film. [ 07-22-2008, 07:03 PM: Message edited by: Monte L Fullmer ]  |  IP: Logged Bill Gabel Film God Posts: 3873 From: Technicolor / Postworks NY, USA Registered: Jan 2002 posted 07-22-2008 05:07 PM                     Here is the projection instructions for "The Ten Commandments" from the wide screen museum. Page three talks about the framing of the picture. The Ten Commandments  |  IP: Logged David Stambaugh Film God Posts: 4021 From: Eugene, Oregon Registered: Jan 2002 posted 07-22-2008 05:32 PM                        The 1989 70mm rerelease shown at the Cinerama Dome in Los Angeles was severely cropped top and bottom. Awful. And Part 1 jammed in the projector and burned at the screening I attended, just a couple minutes before the intermission. It was very weird because I had a feeling something was wrong in the booth minutes before that disaster occurred.  |  IP: Logged Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 07-22-2008 07:00 PM                     The one theatre that I worked at did have "scrim" (title) curtains along with the main waterfall curtains. When we would begin, the waterfalls would begin to rise with house lights being turned off and the foot lights remained on. Then we would begin the projector, and we would open the dowser plus the sound when the waterfall was 2/3rds up it's travel. The opening image would then fall on the scrim curtain. When the waterfall reached its full open positon, footlights would be turned off and we would then open up the scrim curtain and continue the performance. It was a standard and strict procedure that the screen itself is never exposed without any film image shown on it. Having a bare screen was a total unprofessional way to have an excellent presentation - like having the stage exposed while the stage crew and actors are getting ready for the evening performance. ..those were the good ol days... -Monte  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 07-22-2008 08:31 PM                        Was "Ten Commandments" the first instance of the Paramount mountain dissolving into a mountain in the first scene of the movie? Also - I was looking at the projection instructions linked above...it says that prints were 1.85:1 for this picture. But when we ran it in 1990 it was scope. Why and when was this change made? Or were the flat prints only used for the "popular price" engagements?  |  IP: Logged Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 07-23-2008 03:23 AM                     quote: Mike Blakesley it says that prints were 1.85:1 for this picture. But when we ran it in 1990 it was scope. Why and when was this change made? Or were the flat prints only used for the "popular price" engagements "VistaVision" was Paramount's answer to Fox's "CinemaScope" distorted image to produce a wide screen picture, where those early Bausch & Lomb anamorphic lenses didn't have the elements as do the present Panavision lenses has within them. Thus, on closeup scenes that were shot in "CS", the center part of the image still had a slightly expanded image. Plus, with "CS" and creating a distorted image, the depth of field in the frame was lost due to the compression of the anamorphic lens. Paramount saw the way to keep this by shooting the scenes with horizontal, 8-perf film through a flat lens, thus keeping this dept of field, along with massive film area exposure to present a very sharp, wide screen image. During the printing process is when the master film was offset 90 degrees to the printing negative, thus the hard matt frameline was introduced for standard 35mm releases. Thus, to the question: all VV releases were in flat. As for the scope release, I'm not familar with that release, nor why it was specifically done. Yet, I'd take it as a fad like what MGM did with "Gone With the Wind" being released in 70mm (and this film was definitely a full-frame release! Can you imagine how much cropping took place with this 70mm version..?!), but only made a disaster out of these special releases - just to regain the attention of these films. (can you imagine a present booth clown handling such a roadshow performance these days..??)  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

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

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.