Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Anyone consuming HD or Blu-ray?

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Community » The Afterlife » Anyone consuming HD or Blu-ray? (Page 71)

This topic comprises 105 pages: 1 2 3 ... 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 ... 103 104 105

Author

Topic: Anyone consuming HD or Blu-ray?

Paul Mayer
Oh get out of it Melvin, before it pulls you under!

Posts: 3836
From: Albuquerque, NM
Registered: Feb 2000

posted 03-07-2008 05:24 PM

A quote from the late great and sorely missed John Pytlak regarding the current SMPTE recommended anamorphic projector apertures and aspect ratios:

quote:
I put together a chronology of the SMPTE standards specifying the image area for "scope" for Marty Hart's American WideScreen Museum:
http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/apertures.htm

From 1957 through today, there have been a number of small changes to the anamorphic projector aperture recommended standards. John P. Pytlak of Eastman Kodak dug through countless back issues of the SMPTE Journal in order to provide the following chronology of the changes to the standards:

The March 1957 SMPTE Journal has PH22.104-1957, the standard for 2.55:1 anamorphic (no optical track), with an aperture size of 0.912 X 0.715 inches. Notice of withdrawal of this standard was in the January 1964 Journal.

The December 1957 SMPTE Journal has PH22.106-1957 for 2.35:1 anamorphic, with an aperture of 0.839 X 0.715 inches. It was unchanged in the September 1964 Journal. The November 1965 SMPTE Journal published PH22.106-1965 still with the 0.839 X 0.715 aperture size.

In the September 1970 SMPTE Journal, a new draft of PH22.106 was proposed, with an aperture size of 0.838 X 0.700 inches, to minimize the flashes at splices. This was republished as standard PH22.106-1971 in the October 1971 issue.

In the June 1976 SMPTE Journal, the two (flat and scope) projectable image area standards (PH22.58 and PH22.106) were consolidated into one standard and renamed PH22.195. The publication of PH22.195-1984 in the October 1984 Journal still had the scope area as 0.700 X 0.838 inches.

The June 1992 SMPTE Journal published a proposed revision, with a scope area of 0.690 X 0.825 inches. In August 1993, the standard was published as SMPTE 195-1993, with the current area of 0.690 X 0.825 inches. So August 1993 is when the two formats became the same width of 0.825 inches.

BTW, with the current projectable area of 0.825 x 0.690 inches specified by SMPTE 195, and EXACTLY a 2X anamorphic squeeze, the on-screen aspect ratio calculates to 2.39:1.

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 585-477-5325 Cell: 716-781-4036 Fax: 585-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

[/QUOTE]

| IP: Logged

Michael Coate
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1904
From: Los Angeles, California
Registered: Feb 2001

posted 03-07-2008 05:40 PM

quote: Ron Funderburg
Mel Gibson's The Patriot was one of the worst I think it was Sony that asked you on it to frame so the flashes didn't show.

"The Patriot" (2000) was shot in Super-35, so there would not have been any visible negative splices on the release prints. Maybe you're thinking of "Patriot Games" (1992)? [Confused]

| IP: Logged

Bill Gabel
Film God

Posts: 3873
From: Technicolor / Postworks NY, USA
Registered: Jan 2002

posted 03-07-2008 05:53 PM

He might be thinking of Mel's film "The Passion of the Christ". Because that's the one that had the problem with the neg splice flashes.

| IP: Logged

Michael Coate
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1904
From: Los Angeles, California
Registered: Feb 2001

posted 03-07-2008 06:05 PM

Perhaps, Bill, since "Passion..." was shot anamorphic and if it didn't use a DI then it may have had visible splices. I threw out "Patriot Games" because of the similar title. But if Ron is confident it was a Mel Gibson movie, then your guess about confusing "The Patriot" with "The Passion Of The Christ" is probably on target.

But...it occurred to me that there were a handful of 65mm-originated effects shots in "The Patriot." If those shots were post-produced in either 65mm or 35mm anamorphic and not intercut into the rest of the film until after the cut negative of the Super-35 material had been optically converted to anamorphic, then some splices might have been visible on those shots.

That seems a stretch, though, since I doubt that was the route they took to integrate the 65mm footage.

| IP: Logged

Bill Gabel
Film God

Posts: 3873
From: Technicolor / Postworks NY, USA
Registered: Jan 2002

posted 03-07-2008 06:09 PM

quote: Michael Coate
it may have had visible splices.

It did big time.

[beer]

| IP: Logged

Michael Coate
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1904
From: Los Angeles, California
Registered: Feb 2001

posted 03-07-2008 06:44 PM

Off Topic

Bill...You have nearly 3,000(!) posts yet no photo. Has Brad stopped bugging photo-less members to submit an image? Want me to send Brad the photo I took during one of my New York City visits of you next to one of the projectors in your screening room?

| IP: Logged

Ron Funderburg
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 814
From: Chickasha, Oklahoma, USA
Registered: Nov 2007

posted 03-07-2008 06:44 PM

No it was Mel Gibson's movie (as in he started in)The Patriot it was released in 2000 and was shot in Scope with visible splice flashes and that you had to frame carefully to keep from showing. Roland Emmerich directed it Robert Rodat wrote it and it was 175 minutes long. I ran it for 8 weeks Columbia was the releasing company, which was and still is Sony. It was based very loosely off the life of Frances Marion "The Swamp Fox" a revolutionary war hero, in the film they called him "The Ghost" but the British called him the Swamp Fox because he vanished in the swamps when they pursued him and his men.

Sony sent out a letter a week before the film and asked us to frame it as high as possible to hide the edit flashes.

| IP: Logged

Michael Coate
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1904
From: Los Angeles, California
Registered: Feb 2001

posted 03-07-2008 06:47 PM

Ron..."The Patriot" was NOT shot in scope and it could NOT have had negative splices throughout. See my previous post about Super-35 and the use of 65mm for some visual-effects shots.

| IP: Logged

Ron Funderburg
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 814
From: Chickasha, Oklahoma, USA
Registered: Nov 2007

posted 03-07-2008 07:03 PM

It was shot in 35mm Tech-scope or super-scope but it was presented in 35MM anamorphic and there were white lines at the top of the frame usually at a camera angel change but not limited to camera angel shot changes sometimes the white line was visible in an entire shot!

| IP: Logged

Michael Coate
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1904
From: Los Angeles, California
Registered: Feb 2001

posted 03-07-2008 07:18 PM

Where's the graemlin for "talking out of your ass"?

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 03-07-2008 07:20 PM

Sounds to me like you're seeing something other than splices if they last the entire shot.

| IP: Logged

Ron Funderburg
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 814
From: Chickasha, Oklahoma, USA
Registered: Nov 2007

posted 03-07-2008 08:41 PM

Okay after reviewing my booth log from 2000 I admit that the film with the white flashes is not The Patriot we received a Thecn memo from Sony that microphone booms could be seen at the top of the frames and please frame the film as high as possible. Sorry for the mistake I will continue to look though the log and see which film had the flashes all though it.

Memory is a tricky thing sometimes and I apologize for the mistake.

And Michael one would think that a film critic could come up with a better put down than "talking out your ass". Then again it might be quite clever I wouldn't know as I try to not engage in that type of activity. I can't see that makes the one doing the put down any bigger and certainly doesn't encourage polite conversation. But I'm not your dad so your manners or lack of aren't my problem.

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99

posted 03-07-2008 10:22 PM

quote: Ron Funderburg
Okay after reviewing my booth log from 2000 I admit that the film with the white flashes is not The Patriot we received a Thecn memo from Sony that microphone booms could be seen at the top of the frames and please frame the film as high as possible. Sorry for the mistake I will continue to look though the log and see which film had the flashes all though it.

Again, not the Patriot. The Patriot was a scope film. You can't "frame out boom mics". That is only possible on a flat film.

| IP: Logged

Ron Funderburg
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 814
From: Chickasha, Oklahoma, USA
Registered: Nov 2007

posted 03-07-2008 10:56 PM

Brad it is patriot there are even reviews on the net (that was what jogged my memory was that at a tech error in a review) about the mike booms hanging down in the picture. It is just at the top of the frame the bottom of the mic. What I don't understand is how they looked at dailies and didn't realize they had a problem.

This a quote from one of the sites that mention it!

"There are quite a few scenes in The Patriot where you can clearly see the boom slip down into the picture. One is when the oldest son is outside talking to his dad (Mel Gibson)."

This is the Patriot page on that site

http://www.jonhs.com/moviegoofs/patriot.htm

It is also mentioned in actual written reviews. You could get it out if your plates weren't filed out all the way. I had just a pinch of room to get it out in one auditorium and it had to run in that theater the whole time. The mic's didn't hang down a long way in the frame but thy were very visible and very distrubing.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 03-07-2008 11:55 PM

If boom mics were dipping into the frame of The Patriot a movie theater would have very little recourse to hide the error.

Although the movie was filmed in the Super35 process, the cropped image was put through an optical enlargement and anamorphic squeezing process to deliver a full frame anamorphic 35mm 'scope movie print (quad format with the SDDS track in 8 channel).

With digital intermediate processes taking over most movie post production projects, the process of getting a spherically photographed Super35 movie transferred to a 'scope print may be a little different now. Nonetheless, any 2.39:1 ratio movie -be it shot in true anamorphic 35mm or shot with HD video cameras- is going to have a full frame anamorphic 'scope print.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 105 pages: 1 2 3 ... 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 ... 103 104 105

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.