Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Print Numbers

This is topic Print Numbers in forum Film Handlers' Forum at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=000358

Posted by Rob Brooks (Member # 186) on 11-03-1999, 10:31 PM:

I've been told the lower the print #, the better the quality. So when you get 2 or more prints for showings on different screens or back-ups; do you put the lower number in the biggest houses? Can you see a difference? Do you think the audience does?
For those of you who also get EK, Select, ansd showprints in addition to Regular prints; same question. Do you or others see better quality.

------------------
Rob

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-04-1999, 12:15 AM:

About 2 years ago when I worked for United Artists, most of the prints that we got at the theatre we numbered 10 or less. Many of them were print #1. Some of these had been around the block many times when we got them, so they looked horrible. But most of them were brand new. To be honest, I could not really tell a difference. But I was watching them with 8 footlamberts of onscreen light, which was all that we could get out of those STRONG lamphouses (Kodak recently bought that theatre brand new high gain screens for the 2 houses that have 45 foot screens, which really helped out).

We recently got a show print of "The Basket" which is an independant film being test marketed here currently. This is a 1.85 FLAT movie shown on a Christie projector and it is absolutely ROCK STEADY! I hope somebody from Christie is reading this, because they probably don't get too many praises, but this film is proof that you can get a damn good image out of that projector. Now if all labs printed this well, I would jump for joy all day long! Alpha Cine Labs, I think it was.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-04-1999, 04:45 AM:

I don't think the print number will really tell you anything. Since the labs frequently have more than one interneg they print from, a print with a number of 855 might be substantially worse than a print with a number of 860...it depends on when they junk interneg #1 and start printing off of #2. Also, the depots don't preserve the lab print numbers anyway. If the first box on the top of the stack says print #1431, it is still labeled #1 (or whatever block of numbers has been assigned to that area).

I may be wrong here, but that's how I understand it. I'm going with Joe on this one...I can't see a difference either.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 11-04-1999, 07:39 AM:

Having only worked in singles, I've never had two prints of the same thing at once. That said, I doubt that print numbers mean anything (except maybe 1-200 on "13th Warrior" or whatever). If the print number is over 100 or 200 or something, it's probably totally meaningless, anyway. The repertory prints often have interesting print numbers...I ran Casablanca print 98003 (I assume that this means "1998 reprinting - print #3" or something) and KPF's "Monty Python/Holy Grail" print #7 (I can't imagine that they _really_ have 7 prints of this title!) and lots of other oddly numbered stuff. There are a few special cases that I know of--for "The Graduate," prints 1&2 (from Strand Releasing) are off the O-neg and prints 3 & 4 are dupes...I ran print #3 and it didn't look so good...I've seen one of the original prints and it looked slightly better but still was obviously done as cheaply as possible. I'm sure there are other special cases, but I doubt that it means anything for typical wide releases...

Posted by Aaron Mehocic (Member # 15) on 11-04-1999, 10:09 AM:

I also have to agree with Joe, Brad, and Scott. Last year I ran the "Gone With the Wind" reissue and had print #1. Asside from "Eyes Wide Shut" (which gets the distinction of the WORST QUALITY print I ever ran in the eight years I've been operating), the reissue was the second-worst picture I ever projected. Print #1 powdered excessivly, had some static, minor bounces were noticible, and sounded terrible when we moved it into analog upon needing the DTS house for another film. On the upside of print numbers, make sure you keep record of every film's number so as it can be tracked and the fools at Technicolor can't accuse you of stealing their "property" as they have accused me more than once.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 11-04-1999, 02:01 PM:

The large labs don't usually print one complete copy of a feature at a time. They print a few hundred copies of reel 2, then a few hundred of reel 4, then reel 3, etc. Often, the first and last reels are the last to be printed, as final approval of the opening and closing credits sometimes delays finishing the negatives for those reels. So having print number 0123 does NOT mean that you have the 123rd copy of each reel printed. The reels that make up print 0123 may have been printed and processed over a period of several days or weeks.

The print number is assigned strictly for tracking purposes at the lab, at the exchange and in distribution. The lab can usually track which film batch, equipment and operators were used to make the individual reels of a print by their internal record-keeping. Print numbers are also used for tracing illegal copies made from prints that have the MPAA Coded Anti-Piracy (CAP) code.

As noted, certain sequences of print numbers may be reserved for "special" prints, such as "EK" show prints or dye transfer prints. But even having print 0001 does not guarantee that it was not damaged in a previous showing, so all incoming prints should be inspected.

------------------
John Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Professional Motion Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
Eastman Kodak Company
Rochester, NY 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Fax: 716-722-7243

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 11-04-1999, 06:58 PM:

Would somebody please explain about 'premier prints', etc.? We got a premier print of a movie last year. Some people were maiking a big deal out of it and I d

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 11-05-1999, 08:04 AM:

A "premier print" or "EK print" is usually a direct print made from the original negative. Very few are usually made, as any printing operation puts the original negative at some risk for dirt, scratches or damage each time it is handled. They are made on a printer at fairly slow printing speed (e.g., 240 feet per minute). Some may even be made using a "wet gate" printer, where the negative is immersed in a solvent to optically hide scratches and surface defects.

Most "release prints" are made from a duplicate negative, printed at speeds ranging from a few hundred feet per minute, to several thousand feet per minute. The original negative is printed to a "master positive" which in turn is printed to make the duplicate negatives used for release printing. The multiple stages of printing usually introduce some unsteadiness and sharpness loss, compared to a direct print made from the original negative.

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 11-06-1999, 11:33 PM:

Other than the fact that it's a higher quality print, there's nothing special about it. Right?

A lot of people at my theatre were making a big deal over getting a premeire print. None of them seemed to be able to tell me what it meant. (JeeZ!)

What's the purpose? For those 'special' screenings and premiere 'parties' and stuff where they just want to make sure that the print's extra good for all the 'muckety-mucks'?

Posted by Jim Ziegler (Member # 86) on 11-11-1999, 06:18 AM:

We got a showprint of "Ride with the Devil" in today for a cast/crew screening (our sister theatre in town is hosting the world premere Thursday).. It was, apparently, never run (heads and tails were not cut), and had TAP inspection stickers on it... (which made me wonder when I removed the head of reel three and noticed 3 base side scratches on the head of the reel. Since it had a great big THX/TAP sticker on the can that said "Showprint 1" I was expecting a really awesome print...

The print was ok (other than the 5 seconds of base side scratches), but wasn't anything really great (our Pokemon prints were better, actually).

The movie itself was ok... Especiallty the part where they burn Lawrence, KS (which is where I live)... Although it was much too long...