|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Once Upon a Time ... in Hollywood 70mm/35mm release?
|
Mark Louis
Film Handler
Posts: 21
From: Austin, TX USA
Registered: Oct 2018
|
posted 08-27-2019 08:29 AM
quote: Chris Haller
The left projector, which played the even reels, was projecting off center onto the curtain slightly, revealing the soft edge of the film on the right side, as well as some dead space on the screen. It wasn't a ton of space, but it was definitely noticeable.
The right projector, after awhile, seemed to have developed some sort of lens issue where everything just sort of started slanting to the left like a \. It was hard to notice in full scope shots, but closeups started to look a little odd, and the pillarboxed images definitely slanted to the left from the right side, while the left side of the image was perfectly fine. Not really sure what could cause this either, but it was obnoxious.
We're still running OUaTiH 35mm in several locations at Alamo and we're having an encore run over Labor Day weekend. Just like the old days, it definitely requires vigilance to maintain a good presentation with 35 and 70. Our projectionists are trained to watch out for the types of issues you saw at that Rochester theatre but we're not perfect either. The soft right edge could have simply been a case of the aperture plate not pushed in all the way or (especially in the case of reel to reel) the projector could have moved slightly from the action of mounting the reels time and time again. The slanting of the image could have either been caused by keystone, or misalignment of the anamorphic lens. With keystone, due to the angle of the projector, certain areas of the image are significantly farther away from the lens, causing those areas to be magnified greater, thus causing distortion. In the case of the anamorphic, if the lens is slightly rotated off axis after being aligned with RP-40, the image will be slanted.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Harris
Film Handler
Posts: 95
From: Bedford Hills, NY, USA
Registered: May 2003
|
posted 08-27-2019 09:59 AM
I almost hate to post in this thread, but here goes...
A number of facts:
Films such as Lawrence, My Fair Lady, and others, from the 1960s, were printed optically.
Lawrence was cut and conformed auto-select, single strand.
MFL was cut and conformed auto-select, single strand, Technicope.
OCN & print stock moved back and forth in the printer in order to achieve standard printer functions, ie. fades and dissolves.
To illustrate, if there was a dissolve in Lawrence, the A side would continue, sometimes to leader, and then cut to the B side, which in certain instances, began with a slate. The OCN could be hundreds of feet longer than the resultant print.
The number of prints that I was able to confirm on L and MFL, was around 150, and certainly nowhere near 300. Keep in mind that it would not be unusual in the '50s and '60s, for a print to appear pristine, after a year's run.
Also, keep in mind that while printing (and cleaning) were recorded, when damage was done to a print, the lab would pull the OCN, and print the first 50 feet, or whatever was needed.
Dupes were cut in as necessary, as the OCN was damaged.
As I recall, in the case of MFL, there were well over 2,000 feet of dupes, with the entire (as I recall) reel 8B, coming off the 65 seps, which had been produced defectively, and had optical holes running throughout the entire set.
As to IP/IN dupes, with the appearance of Kodak's 5243 stock in the 1986, it became virtually impossible to see the difference at the print level, between an EK print, and a dupe. Both David Lean, as well as Freddie Young preferred the dupe to the original (even though we could not print the original, if we desired to do so), as they both felt that contrast, color, shadow detail, and resolution were on par with the original, and the only difference being a "slightly more velvety appearance to the grain," Freddie Young's words.
It is extremely dangerous to print OCNs of the era, and they should no longer be printed.
For those negatives that have not be re-cut and reconfirmed, they can not be printed, as the ability no longer exists.
Example: When we were working with the MFL OCN, splices were dried, and opening, and what saved the negative, was our decision to create new splices at every cut, and re-conform to A/B from auto-select.
Even going to 35mm, one finds the auto-select conundrum, for example in GF 1.
Hope this is helpful.
RAH
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jean-Pierre Gutzeit
Film Handler
Posts: 43
From: Berlin, Berlin, Germany
Registered: Nov 2012
|
posted 08-31-2019 07:55 PM
Agree. (In 16mm I had made such prints at a Paterson continous printer, checkerboard)
Mr. Harris means the risks of optical step printers. Otherwise I mentioned additive color printing and zero close since 1963 and the excellent condition of many laterer negatives. Fox had struck 40 years later a couple of 70mm prints directly off the 65mm original negative: DOCTOR DOLITTLE, AGONY AND ECSTASY, CLEOPATRA, THOSE MAGNIFICENT MEN, THE BIBLE, HELLO DOLLY. COLUMBIA/SONY made new direct prints of LORD JIM, MGM/UA made KHARTOUM and MAD WORLD. They looked very clean, without missing frames and much sharper than restored 70mm versions of LAWRENCE, FAIR LADY, VERTIGO or SPARTACUS because of their lossy intermediate process, necessary because of the high amount of new prints.
Today in conjunction with brand new negatives of H8 or OUATIH we should demand all prints struck off the OCN. To defend the real brillance of photochemical film!
Thank you for reports of better prints of OUATIH in USA. Me was told by another technician, the 35mm print in London was poor.
Today I saw again MURDER ON THW ORIENT EXPRESS in70mm: much to bright, slight desaturated, with wrong flesh tones, slight greenish, similar to Orwocolor or Swena Color. But nowhere as poors as Berlin's current 35mm print of OUATIH.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jean-Pierre Gutzeit
Film Handler
Posts: 43
From: Berlin, Berlin, Germany
Registered: Nov 2012
|
posted 09-01-2019 03:49 AM
Improvements in the Eastman Color negatives were always noticeable. After 5257 in 1950 followed 5248 in 1952. 1959: 5250. 1962/63 a new emulsion with 5251, which also favoured the blow up process 35>70. 1968 with 5254 the next improvement.
Very clear improvement of the resolution followed with the long lasting change from ECN-I to ECN-II between 1974 and approx. 1977 with the new 5247-Type.
(Even within the same material designation, however, changes were always made tacitly and constantly.)
In principle, the Eastman Color Intermediate materials had always an approximately triple higher resolution than the OCN since the 60s. But I know only very few examples until today, in which a visible difference between direct copy and duplicate was not noticeable, and here also the exemplary mentioned title THELMA AND LOUISE was copied (in 35mm).
Further distinctions have to be made in the print materials:
We were not very happy with the print materials 5384 and 5386 in the 80s and 90s and spoke of "plum-soft" material: too little silver, too little black. Unfortunately, this also affects prestigious restorations such as LAWRENCE O.A. or SPARTACUS. But also new productions like FAR AND AWAY, BARAKA or HAMLET.
Occasionally the 35mm series copying was based on the somewhat more advantageous Fuji print material.
Only with the introduction of the Eastman 2383 and 2393 print material (Vision and Vision Premier) around 1998 did the own grading of the material again correspond to that of the 60s with higher density and better black! Thus BARAKA was copied again at Vision or Vision Premiere.
One could have been happy here, if better times had begun for new copies of so many still intact negatives.
And these possibilities were then also used for the mentioned 70mm revivals with prints off original negatives by Schawn Belston and Grover Crisp, also new revivals of SPARTACUS, LAWRENCE or 2001 of existing internegatives. The results showed in individual cases (HELLO DOLLY, LORD JIM, AGONY AND ECSTASY) partly satisfying results, while "2001", SPARTACUS and LAWRENCE deteriorated after 2002 in 70mm steadily and at today's 70mm festivals the elderer 70mm revival copies of Mr. Harris 1989 and 1991 were sometimes preferred (despite the weak print material). Even as new 70mm direct copies DOCTOR DOLITTLE, THE BIBLE or MEDITERREANIAN HOLLIDAY could be seen in Europe, but disappointed in the unfinished color timing.
Meanwhile it could look more critical with the 65mm OCN negatives, which were used ten or 18 years ago by Columbia and Fox for 70mm direct copies in intact condition, but today already look more critical with regard to color fading and advanced shrinkage, which can hardly be corrected analogously. This would always have to be checked on a case-by-case basis. In general, one cannot say that all older negatives can no longer be copied. Where this may still be possible (perhaps GRAND PRIX, RYANS DAUGHTHER, FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE, THE LAST VALLEY?), everyone would certainly be happy about a revival.
With regard to my criticism of a so called "Orwocolor look" of newer film copies, I will try to include some picture examples as
Link removed by Admin due to violation of site policies.
[ 09-01-2019, 04:44 PM: Message edited by: Brad Miller ]
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Harris
Film Handler
Posts: 95
From: Bedford Hills, NY, USA
Registered: May 2003
|
posted 09-01-2019 03:19 PM
You seem to be looking at the world of laboratory printing through rose-colored glasses. When the studios strike a print today, it is not a run, but rather a color sample, before an IP.
I’m aware of no studio asset exec who would permit additional OCN printing.
Eastman stocks have worked very well for us over the decades, but you seemingly have a problem with Kodak.
You should not consider Spartacus along with other films, as the 65 printing dupe was derived from optically produced masters, and not an IP.
Nothing personal, but you and I will agree to disagree regarding the care and feeding of original large format negatives. I’ve seen the horrific wear and tear, and will work against ever printing them again.
As to the greatest problem toward striking 70mm prints post 2005, it would be the overall inability to control an even exposure across the frame. When I examined tests for the Williamsburg project, I found just a single printer capable of producing an even field, and every print was ordered struck from the same printer. Keep in mind that the light sources were 35, with the beam spread, and not specifically produced for 65.
Lastly, you seem to have a problem with Eastman 5243 dupes, while I consider the stock a godsend.
As did David Lean and Freddie Young.
Please carry on.
RAH
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Robert Harris
Film Handler
Posts: 95
From: Bedford Hills, NY, USA
Registered: May 2003
|
posted 09-01-2019 06:12 PM
Re: Scott’s question about why everything wasn’t simply A/B roll, I can only guess.
Probably because with single strand auto-select, multiple versions, be they 70mm or 35 dye transfer, could be print from the same negative roll. Domestic, foreign, long road show, abridged.
I’ve not a clue why Techniscope cutting would be used, as 2.21 covered the splice lines.
Checkerboard enabled easy re-cutting, without losing frames.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Robert Harris
Film Handler
Posts: 95
From: Bedford Hills, NY, USA
Registered: May 2003
|
posted 09-02-2019 11:54 AM
The labs do what they can. I don't know if it's still current procedure, but in the old days someone would read the lab chart, and create prints by the color of each reel. If things matched decently, the print would end up at a major venue. If not, it's off to Horse's Breath, Montana.
Another problem is that generally a run of reels would be printed and processed, followed by another run, so that different prints, chemistry would affect different reels.
For major releases in the '90s, multiple labs might run certain reels, while other labs...
You get the picture. Not pretty.
I do know that Fotokem does what they can. They're a fine lab. But when there's a major order for multiple 70mm prints, asap, something has to give.
RAH
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carsten Kurz
Film God
Posts: 4340
From: Cologne, NRW, Germany
Registered: Aug 2009
|
posted 09-02-2019 06:52 PM
A lot of people jumped at the jittering opening title ('Cinerama' and such) of 'The Hateful Eight'. A lot of people also seem to believe that Quentin Tarantino is sold on film because he want's to demonstrate films superior resolution, color range, contrast, and various other mystic properties of film against digital. I am quite sure that Mr. Tarantino gives a shit about demonstrating that 35mm has a higher resolution than 4k. He is sold on the general look and feel and handling, not characterizing isolated aspects against a competing technology. As such, I am absolutely sure that the shaky opening title is not a 'fault' or a demonstration of inadequate handling capabilities, but was deliberately done so or, 'deliberately accepted'.
Tarantino came up with grindhouse double features, does anyone really think he developed an ambition towards velvety high end film work?
- Carsten
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 15 pages: 1 2 3 ... 11 12 13 14 15
|
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