This is topic Kudos to Woody 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=000489
Posted by George Roher (Member # 91) on 12-21-1999, 12:56 AM:
I opened up the cans for "Sweet and Lowdown" and found the nicest and most diplomatically written instructional note that I've ever received with a print. I am used to getting notes in the cans that have the picture and sound format info WRONG and/or have a huge list of technical demands. Woody had a couple of helpful suggestions and he personally signed my letter (it was not a Xeroxed signature). I will retype the letter: (BEGIN QUOTE)To the projectionist:
We're sending you this note to set your mind at ease when you first screen "Sweet and Lowdown."
Don't be concerned when you discover that all the sound has been assigned to the center channel, with no information in the left or right speaker or the surrounds. Our reasons for releasing in Dolby SR relate to frequency response and dynamic range. In fact, we recommend that you turn off the surround amplifier completely to avoid the possibility of noise or unwanted signals coming through those speakers. We've found this works for us.
As always, thank you very much for your help.
Woody Allen
(END QUOTE)
You have to love a director who asks you to turn off the surrounds!!
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-21-1999, 03:00 AM:
I don't agree with his mono fetish, but at least he is quality conscious by using SR!
Posted by Michael Barry (Member # 237) on 12-21-1999, 07:57 AM:
I remember screening 'Husbands and Wives' and receiving a similar letter (I kept it!) - it contained a paragraph regarding the sound format like this letter, but included a note about the handheld camera work, the jump cutting and the focus racking as being normal for the movie. In 1992, these 'cinema verite' techniques had not been seen for quite a while.I'm thrilled to see that a new Woody Allen movie is coming out! He's one of the truly great filmmakers working today, I think. Not only is he highly prolific, but each film is a completely satisfying experience that actually improves with multiple viewings.
All his movies are great to see but I think that the pinacle of his career was reached with 'Crimes and Misdemeanors'. However, I feel like mentioning 'Zelig', 'Manhattan', 'Stardust Memories', 'Interiors', etc...
Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 12-21-1999, 09:48 AM:
Kinda makes you wish Dolby kept that "Surround/No Surround" button.Does a CP500 have a format "03" setting?
Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 12-21-1999, 02:21 PM:
All of his films have been Mono
Manhattan was mag with only the centre channel recorded on
Posted by Ken Layton (Member # 133) on 12-21-1999, 02:32 PM:
You couldn't pay me enough to show (or watch) a Woody Allen movie. I can't stand him.
Posted by Erika Hellgren (Member # 22) on 12-21-1999, 02:42 PM:
Whew! Thank you, Ken. I thought I was the only one on this forum who didn't like him.But I do like getting memos with instructions on the best way to present the film (and I'm NOT talking about those TAP print memos, they all say the EXACT SAME THING). Like the note with Pleasantville that told us to play the feature at reference level 7.0.
Posted by Scott Ribbens (Member # 180) on 12-21-1999, 04:22 PM:
John, while the CP-500 does not have an 03 format per say, you can make up any format that you want to with it and store it in one of the user formats.When "Deconstructing Harry" came out, I made up a user format, as this film came with basicly the same note, of Dolby Stereo/SR/No surrounds. Save the format, then go to custom screen, and assing the user format to one of the SK buttons.
------------------
Scott
Posted by George Roher (Member # 91) on 12-21-1999, 04:29 PM:
I do hate those pesky TAP memos. Those usually go straight into the trash when I get them. I wish more directors and industry people showed projectionists the kind of respect that Woody does.Michael: I feel like mentioning Bullets Over Broadway, Play it Again Sam, and my all time favorite: Love and Death. But you're right, they're all good. 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-22-1999, 05:40 AM:
No no no! The note included with Pleasantville asked you to play it louder than 7.0. I still have that note around somewhere in the booth. It said because since the sound was so damn quiet, you shouldn't be afraid to turn it up well beyond what you are used to running films at (more or less).
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 12-22-1999, 08:33 AM:
Dolby format 03 is "stereo/no surround" with Dolby A NR. Is there a format number for Dolby SR/no surround? What about SR/mono (equivalent to format 02, but with SR noise reduction)?
Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 12-22-1999, 10:03 AM:
"Dolby format 03 is "stereo/no surround" with Dolby A NR."Opps! You are right. I used a CP200 for many years. I was a big fan of that processor, but now I only have CP65. So, I forgot about the "A" part of format 03- which I never remember using anyway.
....I think I have Alzheimer's, but I can't remember...
Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 12-22-1999, 04:41 PM:
All of his recent films have been Dolby 'Mono'...Except for "Everyone Says I Love You" which actually had surrounds for the songs, I think...
Posted by Scott Ribbens (Member # 180) on 12-22-1999, 08:05 PM:
There is no offical format number for Dolby Stereo SR/No Surrounds. Unless you have a CP-200 or CP-500, there is no way short of just turning off the surround amplifiers to get that format. I must however correct myself when I said that the CP-500 does not have format 03. The standard format selector configuration does not have 03 assigned to a soft key, but format 03 IS programmed into the unit.
Programed formats in the CP-500 are: 01, 03, 04, 05, 10, 11, 20, 22, 26, 27, 28, 42, 43, 60, 61, 64, 65, & 66. There are also a number of user definable formats.
------------------
Scott
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-22-1999, 10:51 PM:
So what is everyone with a CP200 programming this in as? Format 06? (and no, format 18 is cheating.)
Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 12-23-1999, 10:20 AM:
Woody Allen (his politics notwithstanding) gained my respect at his absolute refusal to allow panned and scanned TV prints to be made of his anamorphic pictures. He is very technically-saavy. I know a fellow who was Woody Allen's projectionist on several movies, and he says that Allen was not above asking for an opinion regarding the projection of b/w pictures, and on certain other technical matters.
Posted by Ian Price (Member # 14) on 12-23-1999, 01:31 PM:
I saw Sweet and Lowdown at the Telluride Film Festival in September. It is a good film with great acting by Sean Penn. The film does have one glaring problem.
The film is a fictional documentary of the "second greatest" jazz guitar player. While the story is shown the film is enjoyable. But Woody Allen keeps popping up to narate the film onscreen. This was enough to make me leave the theatre. When interactive DVDs come out, I can watch the film and not view the Woody Allen bits.
I a way, Woody Allen destroyed a good film by being in it when it wasn't about him.
I do applaud him for caring about the presentation. It comes from him living in the real world and standing in line and paying for watching a film like we do.
Posted by Bruce McGee (Member # 131) on 12-23-1999, 02:24 PM:
As for the pan-and-scan remarks earlier, has anyone seen the old American-International/Filmways/Warners film "Whats Up Tiger Lily?" with music by the Lovin' Spoonful?I used to run this in 16mm for TV. As usual, AI prints were run to death before I saw them, and since I had heard good things about this film, I had a look-see.
It had (possibly) the worst pan-and-scan!
It ranks right up there with the TV prints of the Roger Corman Edgar Allen Poe films of the early 60's.
Was this one not a Woody Allen production?
Posted by Nic Margherio (Member # 273) on 12-23-1999, 09:42 PM:
Why doesn't good old Woody just release his movies with Dolby Digital!? (and DTS and SDDS for that matter) This would ensure that there was no unwanted content in the surrounds or the L/R and, if he really is concerned with dynamic range and frequency response, you can't beat digital. Seems to me to be the easiest way to put a genuinely "mono" soundtrack on a film, doesn't it?
Posted by Christopher Seo (Member # 7) on 12-23-1999, 10:09 PM:
I wonder if he has an analog fetish, as well? Have all his movies been analog-only even if digital was available?
Posted by Michael Brown (Member # 890) on 07-06-2001, 02:39 PM:
Does anybody know as yet was is happening with The Curse of Jade Scorpian. The trailer has the SRD/DTS/SDDS logos and IMDB has it at mono. http://uk.imdb.com/Title?0256524 Also to note that IMDB has Small Times Crooks With mono versions of SRD and DTS. http://uk.imdb.com/Title?0196216
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 07-06-2001, 03:08 PM:
The July 2001 issue of Boxoffice magazine lists the digital formats too. My guess is that it is a mono mix, but takes advantage of digital sound to improve dynamic range and signal-to-noise.------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Eastman Kodak Company
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Cell: 716-781-4036 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion
Posted by Aaron Sisemore (Member # 145) on 07-06-2001, 05:56 PM:
>>...has Small Times (sic) Crooks With mono versions of SRD and DTS.<<As are practically all other Woody Allen films. MONO. Digital soundtracks, all center channel, mono.
Aaron
Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 07-06-2001, 08:20 PM:
Was "Small Time Crooks" the first movie to have a digital mono soundtrack? (All channels were there of course, just only the center channel actually had sound on it- I noticed this was SRD and DTS, but no SDDS, and it didn't have the "PHONE-THX" number at the end like all other Dreamworks movies do, presumably because they knew people'd complain about the film being 'accidentally' run in mono!)
What's funny is the "Small Time Crooks" trailer was stereo- the digital mix having no music at all in the center channel like most trailers do, yet the movie was still mono. The "Jade Scorpion" trailer is stereo too.
Another noteworthy oddity, though not Woody Allen related was "Slums of Beverly Hills", which had the trailer in all 3 digital formats with the music left out of the center channel, but the movie itself was only released in analog stereo.
Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 07-06-2001, 11:52 PM:
I would not bet the entire farm on what the IMDB saya about a film. It's a great resource, but I've seen several errors. One of my favorite is that the 1962 "The Jetsons" TV show was in Sensurround:
http://us.imdb.com/Title?0055683
Posted by Aaron Sisemore (Member # 145) on 07-07-2001, 03:15 AM:
There have been several Woody Allen movies prior to 'Crooks' with mono digital soundtracks.-Aaron
Posted by Charles Everett (Member # 889) on 03-19-2002, 06:38 PM:
Jesse: Small Time Crooks was a negative pickup for DreamWorks, thus no SDDS or "Phone THX". Road Trip was released the same day and had SDDS because that picture was developed at DreamWorks.Michael B: The Curse of the Jade Scorpion is in SRD/SDDS/DTS with all audio collapsed to the center channel. Strangely, the beginning of the US release has the VCL theme over the DreamWorks logo followed by the DreamWorks theme over the VCL logo. 
FWIW the next Woody Allen movie comes out 5/3 in the US with a very fitting title . . . Hollywood Ending.