Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: showing a silent movie right before Batman?

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Film Handlers' Forum » showing a silent movie right before Batman? (Page 2)

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

Author

Topic: showing a silent movie right before Batman?

Rick Raskin
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1100
From: Manassas Virginia
Registered: Jan 2003

posted 07-16-2008 04:59 PM

Isn't it possible that the release print has been reduction printed to compensate for the soundtrack area? I seem to remember running silents that way and no lens or lamp adjustments were necessary. It might pay to ask the distributor. The print may even have a music track, which of course you can mute.

| IP: Logged

Jim Cassedy
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1661
From: San Francisco, CA
Registered: Dec 2006

posted 07-16-2008 06:17 PM

I've had to deal with quick "down & dirty" silent screeings a couple of times.
What worked for me was:
1) Use the prime lens from the scope adapter.
2) Use the scope aperture plate
3) I was using SA's or SAW's and it was possible to pull the aperture plate out (towards you) slightly so that the plate would not cut off the left side of the title cards.
4)Once the plate is in the right position, you can use the eccentric lens shifter to center the picture on the screen.

It wasn't elegant, but it works.

| IP: Logged

Frank Angel
Film God

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

posted 07-16-2008 06:24 PM

Question still needs to be answered -- dual projectors or platters? If platter, then yes, that presents a big problem IF the distrib insists on the "no platter or long play" rule. We do this kind of thing all the time in a number of different theatres and many times I see prints that supposedly are designated as "not to be plattered or long played" and yet the print arrives with heads and tails already cut. If this is the case, rather than leaving the heads and tails and splicing them end to end as Leo pointed out is the only alternative, definately call the distrib and explain that the theatre doesn't have dual projectors and the print is no longer a virgin and has already been, as Leo put it, decapitated (and podectomied), and ask if they can make an exception and let your highly qualified projectionist platter the reels, assuring them that no frames will be lost and the head and tail joins will be perfect when the print is returned. If the booth uses anything other than high quality clear splicing tape (maybe that zebra crap or -- whack their knuckles with a ruler -- the opaque yellow or white stuff), you'll need to buy a roll of clear splicing tape in order to be true to your promise.

Depending on how easily you can get your hands on an additonal apeture plate, I ran into this problem where I had to make-do only with what the theatre had, and as has been pointed out, you can easily show the print using the backup/prime lens from their anamorphic lens set; any qualified projectionist won't be, or at least shouldn't be, thrown by removing and then replacing and realigning the prime lens on his scope setup. Seems like from what you say, the theatre personnel are very supportive -- this extra bit of work shouldn't be a big deal for them.

If you can't get your hands on an aperture plate that you can cut, you can get away with using the existing scope plate. I've had to do that and here's a way to lessen what you are loosing on the screen from the soundtrack -- simply pull the plate out toward you slightly. This will halve the lost between the two sides of the frame; you won't will be loosing the soundtrack width only on that one side, but splitting the image loss from both sides. This will help prevent any of those titles and intertitles that might be close to the edge of the full aperture from being cut off. To tell the truth, I've not seen titles ever framed that close to the edge.

This little cheat will even out the loss but still not fix the center line offset, but it won't be terrible and something that you won't pull your hair out over.

| IP: Logged

Ralph Martin
Film Handler

Posts: 30
From: Vacaville, Ca./ USA
Registered: Jul 2008

posted 07-16-2008 11:47 PM

We have the green light for plattering this particular print but we do have explicit instructions on film speed (fortunately 24fps in this case) and that it is presented full frame.

In searching out silent films to use I came across no owners who were completely against plattering. One was concerned about the distance the film must travel to and from the platter as the extra length, they thought, would allow the print to gather more dust. That seemed to be a minor concern though.

I found that distributors with multiple copies felt ok with reserving one of their prints for plattering situations so long as no frames were lost. Mostly they are happy that young people are taking a real interest in silent cinema.

I’ve learned a lot from you all - mostly pointing to the fact that this is a bigger project than I first thought. Now, I’m more excited than ever about it!

What impresses me most is the attention to detail in your posts. It tells me that the art of cinema isn’t finished by the movie studio producers – that a movie isn’t truly finished until the projection artist in each theater puts his finishing touches on the presentation.

This is why I’m in the arts!

Ralph

| IP: Logged

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

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

posted 07-17-2008 02:19 AM

quote:
that a movie isn’t truly finished until the projection artist in each theater puts his finishing touches on the presentation.

This is why I’m in the arts!

..and why the lot of us take dubious pride in being that artist ... and why of this forum created by an artist to allow us artists to gather together to share our talents and offer info for potiental and achieving artists!

- Good luck, once again with this project.

| IP: Logged

Leo Enticknap
Film God

Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000

posted 07-17-2008 04:59 AM

quote: Ralph Martin
In searching out silent films to use I came across no owners who were completely against plattering.

Out of interest, where is your print coming from? Of the major US archives I know people at, GEH and MoMA have a strict and non-negotiable 'no platters' rule. UCLA has a small number of its most heavily requested titles for which it has two prints - one which only goes to venues they know and trust and is a 'no platters' print, and another (usually a bit older and worn, or of a now out-of-date restoration and possibly slightly incomplete, an answerprint with one or two timing glitches or something like that) which can go anywhere and on a platter. On this side of the pond the British Film Institute has been a little more hands-off in the last decade or so, but this has resulted in a deterioration in the condition of some of its more popular archive viewing prints.

| IP: Logged

Stephen Furley
Film God

Posts: 3059
From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England
Registered: May 2002

posted 07-17-2008 06:46 AM

The BFI seem to be distributing more titles in digital form now. The current David Lean season which is screenng at a number of cinemas around the Country for example seems to be at least mainly in this format; I'm not sure if any new 35mm prints have been struck as well.

I saw 'In Which we Serve' at the Clocktower last night, the sccond black abd white film that I've seen digitially, and it still looked a bit odd to me, articularly in grainy scenes; the grain just looked differnt to the way it does on a film print, but it is difficult to describe.

I've never seen a print which has been made up and broken down many times without noticable damage; is there a case for distributing such prints on 6k reels? There's a lot of difference between a normal print which may only be made up and broken down a couple of times during its life, and an archive print which will have a life of decades, and be sent out to maybe 100 times during its life.

Venues running 6k changeovers would simply run the print as it comes, while those with single projectors and either towers or platters, or indeed projectors which can take large spools directly as some Cinemeccanicas can, would only have to make and break at one point during most features.

I know that distribution in 6k parts was tried briefly some time ago, and was not successful; what was the reason for this? How many cinemas are there now which can only run 2k reels?

| IP: Logged

Leo Enticknap
Film God

Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000

posted 07-17-2008 07:21 AM

There was the Warners ELR system and more recently Brian Guckian proposed a distribution system based on shipping and projection using 6k reels. If I understand the situation correctly, the problem in both cases was essentially the overall capital cost of a large scale conversion in the way prints are shipped and handled, both at Perivale/Berko etc. and in individual projection boxes. It makes perfect technical sense, but the cost of (i) several tens of thousands of spools and shipping cases, (ii) converting vans, fork lift trucks, the shelving in film stores etc. to handle the things, and (iii) extra equipment purchases in projection booths where necessary just wasn't something the industry was willing to stomach, especially with the 'full-scale conversion to digital is just around the corner' mantra that's been hanging over us for several years now.

| IP: Logged

Jim Cassedy
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1661
From: San Francisco, CA
Registered: Dec 2006

posted 07-17-2008 09:40 AM

quote: Ralph Martin
that a movie isn’t truly finished until the projection artist in each theater puts his finishing touches on the presentation.

Thank you!

I have always approached my job as the last (but no less important) link in the film production process. Unfortunately it's the nature of the job that if I do it right, no one should be aware of my presence.

I'm a nice guy, but whenever someone says to me "You have such an easy job, all you do is push buttons and watch movies!"; I want to punch them! [Mad]

Several years ago I got to work an "open" carbon-arc changeover booth at an outdoor film festival.
(and I had to keep an eye on two large generators)

I was under a tent-like canopy enclosure in case of bad weather, but otherwise exposed to view.

On more than one occasion someone would come up to me afterwards and comment on how busy I was during the show.
I made sure to thank them profusely for noticing.

One guy once told me that "watching me work was more entertaining than the movie" that night.

I almost could have kissed him! ( [Eek!]

well, you know what I mean...It was a rethorical reaction!)

| IP: Logged

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

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

posted 07-17-2008 02:07 PM

quote: Jim Cassedy
One guy once told me that "watching me work was more entertaining than the movie" that night.

..like me when I used to run a carbon arc booth at a drive-in and the patrons would walk by the booth watching me do "the full monty" on changing/setting the rods, wiping out the machine/lamphouse, lacing up the Motiographs and making the changeovers...they'd asked me if I went to school for this position since it was so 'technical' to them ... "No, just the love of the trade" what I told them.

| IP: Logged

Frank Angel
Film God

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

posted 07-17-2008 03:37 PM

quote:
The current David Lean season which is screenng at a number of cinemas around the Country for example seems to be at least mainly in this format;

Ummm, LAWRENCE OF ARABIA in 2K digital? Not sure if that's a good thing. Even in 35mm it lacks what a 70mm presentation will give. But video? Not even 4K? Somehow the thought isn't exactly giving me goose-bumps.

| IP: Logged

Ralph Martin
Film Handler

Posts: 30
From: Vacaville, Ca./ USA
Registered: Jul 2008

posted 07-17-2008 04:22 PM

quote: Leo Enticknap
Out of interest, where is your print coming from? Of the major US archives I know people at, GEH and MoMA have a strict and non-negotiable 'no platters' rule.

I could see UCLA or other archival systems being extremely careful as to how their prints are used. After all if their prints are made from an original negative or some degradable source there’s a good reason to be nervous.

In the case of both Metropolis (Kino International) and Wings (Channel 4). These are 2k digital restorations so that use of their 35mm print risks only that particular print. It can be replaced for the cost of a new digital copy – perhaps around $8000.00. Based on what they charge per screening it doesn’t take too many presentations to turn a profit as well.

I’m glad that these companies exist. If it weren’t for them our city would never get to experience a silent film and my students would never get to accompany one. And the 2k restorations do look better than the scratchy jittery worn (and maybe dangerous) archival prints.

| IP: Logged

Louis Bornwasser
Film God

Posts: 4441
From: prospect ky usa
Registered: Mar 2005

posted 07-17-2008 06:13 PM

No changes in distribution in the USA should be needed. We "moved" 70mm and 3D 35mm reels in the 1950-1960 era with no trouble.

Perhaps reissues could further reduce the Mylar thickness another 30%. This would leave us at 49% thickness of Acetate. A 6000 ft reel would then hold 12000 ft+ (6+ reels); all on one 26" reel!

"Archive" prints would never need to be cut!! Louis

| IP: Logged

Jack Theakston
Master Film Handler

Posts: 411
From: New York, USA
Registered: Sep 2007

posted 07-18-2008 04:50 PM

I disagree that just because these prints come from a digital restoration means that you don't have to take the utmost care in how you run them. Fact is, they're NOT ever going to make back the money that went into restoring and printing up that print. So to anyone who thinks it's "just another print," think again before you run something archival.

| IP: Logged

Leo Enticknap
Film God

Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000

posted 07-18-2008 05:42 PM

Half agreed. There is a difference between a print of a provenance which is irreplaceable and one that isn't. For a (hypothetical) example, let's say you are an archivist who acquires the cut camera negative, an IP, a dupe neg and an original (as in, was printed for that film's initial release from the dupe neg you already have) prints of a given title. There is no theoretical need to designate the print as a preservation master, because you have the (higher generation, and thus better quality) source material it came from. Now let's say that the neg and IP had some notable defects, and you corrected these by striking new preservation elements, perhaps using a step printer which can compensate for shrinkage, or, if the problem is too bad for that, using digital intermediate technology. You then strike a print from these new preservation materials.

I'd argue that circulation of the print struck from original materials when they were still in good condition should perhaps be more restricted than the one struck from new preservation materials, because you can't replace the former but you can the latter. That original print potentially gives you information about how the film will have looked and sounded when it showed to the public on its first run. If you don't have the money to make new preservation masters and a print, then that might add up to a case for allowing your original release print to be shown (because you have the higher generation elements it derived from, and therefore that print isn't strictly needed to preserve the content per se), but imposing pretty rigid film handling standards (basically, only sending it to places you trust and which have a track record of being trustworthy) which aren't as necessary for your new print made from new preservation dupes.

| 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

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.