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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » 3D Coming back to film? (Page 10)

This topic comprises 24 pages: 1  2  3  ...  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  ...  22  23  24

Author Topic: 3D Coming back to film? Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 11-23-2009 07:00 PM                     Being an "Over/Under" one could splice two sprocket holes off and can still say -"I spliced the thing in frame." If that happens, then the occupant would have to wear the glasses upside down to be in correct phase. Otherwise, headaches would definitely occur... And if the booth clown is not paying attention to what he is doing and simply did a splice out of frame -like one sprockethole - They'd have to actually stop the movie and rethread to be back in phase to continue the performance..can't just simply roll the FRAME knob. Just hope that the production would include definite large framelines for the defined frame and thin ones for the "over/under" segment within the defined frame. This sounds like a respectable and economical system to use, but the immense training from each circuit/location is mandantory on how to handle such print assemblies correctly...and this definitely falls out of the KISS system that is in common use nowdays... -Monte  |  IP: Logged Jack Theakston Master Film Handler Posts: 411 From: New York, USA Registered: Sep 2007 posted 11-23-2009 09:19 PM                     Ah, I thought you were referring to shutter phase. Yes, they're going to have to mark these things to be idiot-proof.  |  IP: Logged Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 11-23-2009 09:49 PM                     (Sorry Jack and to all, my bad-should have make that more clear being the phasing of the frame per assigned eye..)  |  IP: Logged Louis Bornwasser Film God Posts: 4441 From: prospect ky usa Registered: Mar 2005 posted 11-24-2009 03:42 PM                        A suitable plan is to go back to the triangles pointing to the frame line; but then no more sdds! (Are any still used? Not around here. Costing: At one time I was able to get the yearly budget for two film companies. Using the number of features released, the number of prints released, and 5 as the number of reels per print; the cost was less than $50 per reel. That was probably 10-15 years ago and did not include any freight or any distributor markup; just the actual money paid out to the printmaker. Therefore, I would believe $1000/print to be a rather high number even when reels and cans are included. (You always get NEW reels and cans, right????) Louis  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 11-24-2009 04:52 PM                     No problem with SDDS...just print the triangles in the Magenta layer...the SDDS will be blind to it. Steve  |  IP: Logged Jack Theakston Master Film Handler Posts: 411 From: New York, USA Registered: Sep 2007 posted 11-24-2009 05:09 PM                     Technically, you could do the same thing the optical track, right? I wonder if any latent silver image might become detrimental.  |  IP: Logged Stephen Furley Film God Posts: 3059 From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England Registered: May 2002 posted 11-25-2009 12:24 PM                     quote: Monte L Fullmer Being an "Over/Under" one could splice two sprocket holes off and can still say -"I spliced the thing in frame." If that happens, then the occupant would have to wear the glasses upside down to be in correct phase. Otherwise, headaches would definitely occur... This actually happened once at the National Film Theatre. Something was obviously wrong; some people who realised what had happened turned their glasses upside down, others who didn't know about how polarised 3-D works tried turning them left to light. Eventually just about everybody had their glasses on upside down. After a minute or so the box realised what had happened and corrected it, and the whole audience then turned ther glasses over.  |  IP: Logged Mike Frese Master Film Handler Posts: 465 From: Holts Summit, MO Registered: Jun 2007 posted 11-25-2009 02:02 PM                        Regarding film stock costs: I have been told that kodak and others have drastically cut their film stock costs so they can still be in the game. So the costs for film today are significantly lower than they were 5 years ago.  |  IP: Logged Karl Borowski Expert Film Handler Posts: 161 From: Sulking in GameFAQ Forum Registered: Sep 2009 posted 11-25-2009 04:28 PM                     $50/reel is 2-1/2 ¢ / foot (8.2¢/m). Even if inflation has doubled those figures (which it hasn't quite, using the general inflation index as a guide), that can't be right. So is everyone else here talking about five-reel films? I've been using six reels for my average.  |  IP: Logged John Hawkinson Film God Posts: 2273 From: Cambridge, MA, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 11-25-2009 05:30 PM                     It doesn't matter. And the average reel is more like 1700ft, maaaaybe 1800, definitely not 2000. Anyhow, Karl, you're new here. And you've caused people not to trust you. And you're adopting a position that's contrary to that of several experienced people. Best to think about that. Have a Happy. --jhawk  |  IP: Logged Jonathan Althaus Master Film Handler Posts: 435 From: Bedford, TX Registered: Dec 2008 posted 11-25-2009 06:55 PM                     Lets not forget the mini-reels, like #6 on New Moon. Or the fact that reels 1-5 of Public Enemies were about the same length as 6-8.  |  IP: Logged John Hawkinson Film God Posts: 2273 From: Cambridge, MA, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 11-25-2009 07:03 PM                     Average. Did we say median? No we did not! --jhawk  |  IP: Logged Jonathan Althaus Master Film Handler Posts: 435 From: Bedford, TX Registered: Dec 2008 posted 11-25-2009 09:28 PM                     Well our average reel length for our 16 prints we have is 1580 ft, I'm assuming due to "mini reels".  |  IP: Logged Karl Borowski Expert Film Handler Posts: 161 From: Sulking in GameFAQ Forum Registered: Sep 2009 posted 11-26-2009 01:02 AM                     I'm new here?!?!? No shit! [I really don't get this cross-thread banter crap. Are you trying to HAZE me or something? My thick skin is worn really really really really thin at the end of a 14-18 hour day, sorry. This is a place I come to relax, not deal with more of the same NEEDLESS drama I have to deal with all day at work.] That doesn't mean I don't know what I am talking about. If you want to go with a 5-reel, 1500 foot per reel movie, fine. 5x1500=7500 feet still (So I can't fathom any less, than, bare minimum of $750 of rawstock). Now that is getting you in the price range where it'd be a thousand dollar movie, after costs of actual printing are factored in. But that short a length is no more average than an eight-reel movie. I'm going on the assumption that an average movie is 90+ minutes, say 95, maybe 100 minutes on average with credits. I think that assumption is perfectly good, even if I shouldn't be using full two-thousand foot reels. @Monte, yeah, I get my figures from the lab industry. I am between gigs at the moment, but I used to be involved with low volume negative to "slide" printing using the ECP-2D Kodak VIsion print stock. My figure was for Vision Granted the quotes I got were from labs that weren't Technicolor Hollywood or anything, but they were NOT small consumers like I was, either. Have a Happy Thanksgiving everyone in the States. Hopefully you aren't working [too much of the day]. I am working in the evening, but am having Thanksgiving Dinner before then, thankfully.  |  IP: Logged Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 11-26-2009 02:43 AM                     "Dark Knight" have 7 full-to-the-brim reels, That was the best building session that couldn't be beat.. I was impressed with the lab to come up with that one to get all necessary reels full like that. Last time I saw all reels full in a feature release is when Paramount issued "The Ten Commandments" (IB acetate stock) on 12 full reels in a 1972 re-release.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 24 pages: 1  2  3  ...  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  ...  22  23  24

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.