|
|
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 03-21-2017 01:03 PM
Tyler - I'm not aware of any registration issues with either of your projectors. We certainly had other challenges at the Aero last weekend, the main one being that a coil fried in one of the Simplex/Zipper changeover shutters actually during Friday's show (as in, the the "over" button was pressed and the outgoing machine failed to close), meaning that changeovers in one direction had to be done by means of a contortion act involving one hand on the button and the other on the lamphouse dowser of the outgoing machine. But myself and another projectionist worked the H8 show on Friday: running an RP-91 loop as part of the setup process, both before and after the anamorph was fitted and aligned, neither I nor she could see any significant problem with the projected image. I'm guessing that it must have been Quentin's deliberate jitter that got you.
The major Aero problem that I really wish I could solve now is that the color temperature from the two projectors does not match - one of the machines is slightly whiter than the other. Only a real expert with a sharp eye would notice it on color, but it's more obvious than I'm comfortable with across the changeover with a b/w print. We use exactly the same model of bulb in both (Ushio 4kW), and both lamphouses were bought new from Kinoton at the same time (so no difference in the reflector model, presumably), and both lamphouses have an individual extract fan on the roof of the same power. The port glass, rectifiers and lenses are also all of the same model and bought at the same time, too.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tyler Purcell
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 180
From: Van Nuys, CA
Registered: Dec 2015
|
posted 03-21-2017 10:46 PM
Hey Leo - Yea the saturday show of The Master, the left projector had a pretty noticeable set of issues. The film is so dark in areas, you may not see it from the booth unless you sat down and watched the entire reel. It may not actually be "registration" it may simply be a shutter calibration issue where the pulldown process is happening before the shutter blocks the light. I would bet that is more of the issue, rather then the intermediate or gate. However with that said, I did notice soft focus issues on the bottom center of the image, which led me to believe it could be a gate issue.
On one of the reels, something happened that I can't explain. On the same projector, the center of the image was washed out for the entire reel. The corners were crisp, but almost the entire image was completely white and washed out. I couldn't explain it and I heard lots of yammering in the booth after the reel change, and the problem didn't come back.
The douser issue was kinda funny, as someone whose spent quite a bit of time in the booth, with older manual douser projectors, I chuckled when the douser started closing on it's own mid reel. I was the only person who got up and stared walking to tell'em, but it was fixed shortly after.
I was impressed by the print, it just needed a cleaning. The right projector was amazing, absolutely flawless image, zero issues. That darn left projector, you know the one that makes all the noise, that thing really needs some work. I didn't go to the Interstellar screening on sunday because frankly, I was upset with the projection. I want to see GOOD 70mm projection because frankly, it's hard to find these days. I don't mind working at the theater and seeing mediocre presentations, but when I'm a paying customer, it's hard ya know? All I wanna do is go into the booth and figure out what's wrong. I know you guys have limited budgets and parts... well, forgetaboutit... still, it's hard to attract customers, especially with 70mm screenings (film buffs mostly) if the projection isn't stellar as well. I feel bad for your situation and would love to help, but I think you've got things covered.
In terms of the color difference, it's for sure noticeable. I was thinking it has to be an issue with the reflection calibration, as the brightness between the two projectors is different. I bet if you threw a test pattern on the projector and spot meter on the screen, you'd see the difference in luminance right away. The Kinton stuff is so odd. I spent a whole evening with Jim over at UCLA discussing his Kinton experiences, he wasn't very impressed with their products. He said they needed a lot of setup time to get right and the projection units still have issues now and again, thanks to the Germans over thinking things as always. Someday, I wanna get my hands on those suckers and mess around with'em because they can do some neat things. Anyway, I bet it's just the alignment between the housing and the back of the projector or the reflector, it's gotta be something simple like that.
P.S. You guys do a great job and I don't mean to be a grouch about the issues. I just think the house could be one of the best in town with only a few small tweaks... ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 12-05-2017 10:09 PM
If the studios are showing willingness to support the "buy one yourself" route (by granting the necessary licenses and making the dupe neg available for printing) in cases where the math can be made to work at the exhibitor's end, I don't think that's a bad thing.
I don't work for the American Cinematheque anymore, but I don't think I'm breaking any confidences by recalling that when I did, we felt that we were taking a leap into the dark with the 2001 print, and did so mainly because that looked like the one and only way of getting a reasonable 70mm print available for the public to see regularly again. We brainstormed a list of other potential titles to think about if were possible to do that again: Larry was at the top of it, despite it being about the most expensive movie possible to make a new print of (because of its length). The Sony print we had been showing three or four times a year at both the Egyptian and the Aero had worn out to the point at which the baked-in dirt on lighter scenes in particular was becoming a significant distraction.
It's great news to hear that not only does the Cinematheque believe it to be viable to do this again, but also that another major art/rep/archive theater is going to do a buy-one-yourself 70mm print.
The only other project I know of that used this approach to putting good quality film prints of important classics on regular display was the British Film Institute's "360 Classic Films" project that ran at the Museum of the Moving Image in London, during the decade or so it was open (late 1980s to late 1990s). The idea was that they would play one classic movie for every night of the year that the museum was open. From what I remember, they only managed to acquire prints of around 100 titles before the place closed. Some were donated, some were cash purchases from studios and other archives, and others were printed from the BFI's own preservation masters. Because the prints were only ever handled by professionals in a well-maintained booth, they stayed in good shape. I don't know what happened to them after MOMI closed.
The one worry I have is that this new 70mm LoA print will, according to the Cinematheque's email, derive from a digital intermediate output from the latest restoration, so the viewing experience won't be totally analog. It'll be the equivalent of listening to a vinyl LP cut from a digital original, with a DAC feeding the cutterhead's preamps. All the previous filmouts from DIs I've seen have reminded me of watching a Bluray, but with added dirt, scratches, and picture weave. You can easily tell that what you're seeing is not totally analog. It would have been nice if they could have struck more prints directly from the element used to make the 1988 restoration prints, but there must have been powerful reasons against doing that. But personally, if I'm going to see the end output of a digital restoration, I'd prefer to see a DCP. If the restoration is a photochemical workflow, I'd want to see a print.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Mark Ogden
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 943
From: Little Falls, N.J.
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 12-06-2017 05:58 AM
quote: Leo Enticknap
It would have been nice if they could have struck more prints directly from the element used to make the 1988 restoration prints, but there must have been powerful reasons against doing that
Correct me if I am wrong, but I was under the impression that 70mm prints are only ever made from the original camera negative, and nothing further along, in fact I think I read that here from somebody. I recall hearing, perhaps after the 2012 digital restoration, that the photochemical elements of Lawrence were pretty much falling apart and likely couldn't take any more passes. But you're right, a scan-out of the 4K files seem pointless and potentially misleading. Saying "brand new 70mm print", while technically accurate, implies something to a film savvy moviegoer that is not being delivered here.
| 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
Printer-friendly view of this topic