|
|
This topic comprises 7 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
|
|
Author
|
Topic: There's a Brand New 70mm Print of "2001" BUT . . .
|
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 10-25-2016 06:06 PM
Brad Miller writes:
quote: Brad Miller
In regards to the #2 DP70 projector of Leo's, keeping in mind I am not a total expert with the DP70 model, my suspicion based upon the info presented above is that it will likely be one of these things:
*Azimuth of gate to trap (or gate/trap assy to film path) is off.
Possibly. Not sure how I'd check this.
quote: Brad Miller
*Intermittent sprocket lateral alignment is not centered with respect to gate/trap.
I doubt it, because there is a screw thread down the middle of the shaft, through which the sprocket is secured. So if there is any lateral "wiggle room," it's micrometers at most. I've turned the sprocket round (examining the teeth with a pocket microscope while it was off the shaft and not finding any damage on either the 35mm or 70mm teeth), which made no difference to the noise level. If the shaft itself were not properly aligned, possibly due to a loose seal as it goes through the chassis, or even a fault in the cross box, that could do it, though.
quote: Brad Miller
*Gate/trap tension is too great. Remember this will cause the film to buckle very slightly in the gate (not usually visually noticeable, but will cause the center of the projected image to be out of focus).
Definitely not that. The gate tension on a Norelco tends to tighten of its own accord as a reel runs through (it's done this on every one I've ever used), and so I always check it at the start of a reel by backing if off until I just start to see picture shake, and then tightening it just until the picture is steady. Adjusting the tension does not make any difference to the noise this projector makes.
quote: Brad Miller
*Hooked sprocket teeth, likely on the intermittent sprocket, but could be any of them.
Not that. I've checked the teeth on all three sprockets that the film passes over.
quote: Brad Miller
*Intermittent show pressure is too great or the alignment from shoe to intermittent sprocket is off.
Not that. The intermittent shoe is part of the removable gate assembly, and when I swap the assembly with that of the other projector, the noise does not move with it.
quote: Brad Miller
As a super quick test I would also put the #1 70mm kit into #2 (with junk film of course) and see if the operational noise level drops to normal as a quick test to rule out something within the actual 70mm kit for the #2 machine.
I've done that with the gate assembly, but not with the bands or pad rollers. That is what I need to check next.
Thanks to Brad and everyone for suggestions.
quote: Tyler Purcell
Hey Leo, what would it take to get new prints of Vertigo and LOA made? Do you think if the money could be raised, the archives would let the source materials out to have another print made like they did with 2001?
That's a decision for programmers and leadership to make, not me. LOA would certainly be seriously expensive (I'm guessing in the region of $30k) on account of its length. But there again, we have never attracted a crowd of less than 350ish, even for the now worn out Sony print #4, and frequently sell the Egyptian out. My guess is that a lot will depend on ticket sales for the week-long 2001 run in December.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brad Miller
Administrator
Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99
|
posted 10-25-2016 06:42 PM
Leo, I would have to have a DP70 in front of me to remember all of the adjustments. It's been almost 20 years since I spent any serious time with that model, but if one was in front of me I'm sure I could remember. (That being said with the general love for the DP70 there should soon be someone else chime in here with the expertise to share their knowledge.)
I doubt it would turn out too good with booth acoustics, but is it possible to record 15 seconds of each projector running 70mm and email me an audio file? (I could also post it here.) Just don't get TOO close with the mic when recording and make sure the mic is in the same relative position to each projector. (You could likely just do a cell phone video.)
On the lateral intermittent sprocket alignment, is it not possible to get your head in there at such an angle to see the centering of the sprocket teeth in relation to the sprocket holes in the film? Could you stick a newer cell phone in there that has a good macro focus ability and snap a picture maybe? Alternatively (and I've never done this, but it's an idea) perhaps you could put a strip of acetate film in there, make sure to pull it down a dozen frames by hand to make sure the film is straight, then manually pull on the film with the machine at a standstill to try and force the intermittent sprocket teeth to make some stretch marks on the sprockets for a frame (which you can then inspect for centering outside of the machine).
Sam, I am very glad to see someone else has noticed the JJ gate clearance issue! Most people I talk to about this tell me there is no such problem (while I plug up my ears when they roll the projector, cringing at the extra stress on the film and intermittent).
I would have to say every JJ I've worked with needed more than a mere .040 inches of extra clearance relative to 35mm. Granted I didn't go around measuring, but I'm curious if that was a general rule you calculated, or if that was the measurement from one sample JJ you serviced back in the day?
On turret JJs I've been able to make things "better" by adding a few layers of electrical tape behind the 35mm gate, but I've never been able to add "enough" to get the 35mm clearance just right.
My procedure typically puts me at needing to leave the 35mm gate tension just barely enough to hold a film reasonably steady at 12:00, with some films needing to run between 1:00-3:00 on the dial. During that setting of the gate/lens holder assembly I also have to pay extremely close attention to the focus on screen since it is like a Kinoton lens turret in the fact there is wiggle room in all directions, but once you start tightening things down things tend to drift a little bit away from where you had it (so you have to pre-estimate to get it to land dead on where you need it). If that gate isn't sitting just right then focus (top to bottom) will definitely be compromised. It gets even more fun with dual projector setups, where I have to get in and shim the mount for side to side even focus.
Anyway, once that gate/lens holder assembly is locked down and I have perfect focus with 35mm in all 4 corners I have found 70mm will fall right into place in regards to focus...but the gate ALWAYS closes too far for running 70mm without exerting extra wear.
On the turret JJs there really is no choice but to loosen the gate mount when switching formats, but on single lens JJs you can use my old allen wrench trick from my days at GCC Northpark. In a nutshell, get yourself a set of metric allens and there is a place you can position it to prevent the gate from closing too far. The nice thing is with a set of allens, you have repeatable precision in 1/2mm increments. ![[thumbsup]](graemlins/thumbsup.gif) This came in handy back in the day when we would run a morning trade screening in 35mm, then switch to the normal 70mm engagement (which may have been dts70), then at midnight run the older 70mm print for a midnight movie (always mag and thicker than dts70). I would simply label the tail of the print with the size of allen wrench to use. We NEVER had the slightest problem with 70mm, the projectors purred very quietly and the image on screen was spot on flawless as various people who attended there can testify. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
I had one H8 JJ in Houston that was so tight I found I couldn't turn the projector down by hand with film in the gate. It was so damn tight I didn't even want to risk damaging anything and I just optimized it for polyester 70mm since that's all those stripped-down machines will ever run again. I also had another one with horrible top to bottom focus requiring adjustment and another couple which weren't too offensively far off, but definitely needed some easing up. Regardless none of the JJs in my H8 territory were aligned properly. (I've always felt this was an area of JJs that few people seemed to have much expertise with, and the H8 run further proved that theory.)
I never thought about tapping the gate plate with a stop screw. Pretty interesting solution. Do you have photos? That might be a good idea for some of these venues that run 35mm and 70mm and just flip things around and pay no attention to what they are really doing to the prints.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 10-26-2016 09:53 AM
Thanks Brad. We've got two big festivals about to hit us at the Egyptian, as a result of which I'm not scheduled to be at the Aero again until November 20, so please forgive me if the next update on this isn't instant. Step 1 will be to try swapping pad rollers and bands, and if that doesn't help, I'll make that video/audio recording as a step 2 (will probably use my D-SLR: its built-in microphone will certainly pick up the difference between the sound of the two machines).
David - I've wondered if one option for us might be to approach a major donor or foundation with a pitch for a big project to have our own 70mm prints made of all the major classics for which good printing elements (i.e. INs and DTS track negs) exist, and thus are printable without seriously expensive back-end restoration first, with an undertaking to play one at each theater, say, once every two weeks on a year-round rotation. Daniel Schulz writes in another thread:
quote: Daniel Schulz
The occasional 5/70 release serves to keep the machinery humming on standby so it can be revved up for the release of Dunkirk.
It seems to me that over the last year we've seen small run 5/70 releases of some frankly forgettable movies. If there is an informal industry agreement to ensure that FotoKem has enough business trickling in to keep its 5/70 release printing operation viable, surely a better way to do that would be to find some way of financing new prints of the widescreen classics that we know have a long term audience? It's like the difference between popular and classical in the music business: the rock/pop album typically achieves 95% of its sales in the first week of release and then disappears without trace, but a classical album will sell slowly but steadily over 30-40 years.
Personally, I'd far rather that the industry helps to keep FotoKem's 5/70 operation on life support by ordering a slow trickle of new prints of LOA, WSS, 2001, South Pacific, Oklahoma, and the other 15-20 DTS 70 restorations that we know will pull a decent house in the few 5/70-equipped venues dotted around the world for decades to come and are a far better showcase for the medium, rather than 10 prints of Star Bores Episode 25: The Farting Menace that will be gathering dust after the opening week, only to be seen again by the hardest of hard core 70 geeks.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tyler Purcell
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 180
From: Van Nuys, CA
Registered: Dec 2015
|
posted 10-26-2016 11:37 AM
Just an FYI, Fotokem's large format lab is in no trouble. They make almost all of the IMAX dome prints in the country, so they're churning out new large format prints daily. The 5/70 business is pails in comparison to the 15/70 business.
Striking a print off an already DTS prepped IN is easy and inexpensive. For films that don't have the DTS IN already, it's a very expensive process to take the analog elements, mix them for DTS and spit out a new soundtrack. I fret that cost is a bridge too far, but new prints struck off the DTS IN, isn't that bad. The big question remains, how good is the IN? I'm not sure how they made the DTS IN for LOA, but it was not using modern film socks. I don't know how they performed the original 1988 restoration, but I assume a new IP would have been made from the camera negative that is probably deteriorated. That process would need to be done all over again for it to truly show what's in that negative, as I'm certain it's nowhere near as noisy/grainy as the print I saw. That circulating print was probably made on early 90's (pre vision) print stock. Kodak didn't update their 70mm print stock until the late 90's. I believe Titanic was one of the first 70mm released films shot and finished on Vision.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 7 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
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.
|
Home
![[beer]](graemlins/beer.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic