Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Wasted Space

This is topic Wasted Space 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=000632

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 02-05-2000, 12:45 AM:

I am putting together my SECOND copy of THE MESSENGER in two days. My first copy was totally trashed, I want to thank whatever buthole operator destroyed it, and the Technicolor jackass that actually signed off on it as having been inspected.

My REEL beef is that the movie came on ten reels. TEN FRICKEN REELS. It would have made it easily on seven reels. Do they have any brains about this when they decide to do this to us? Do they realize just how much time and care we have to put into each and every splice? OF COURSE THEY DONT!!!

And speaking of splices. One of thier lab splices was out of frame, and like the bonehead that I am I did not catch it. Now I have to put another one of these things together. It takes me so damn long because I make sure that each and every splice is lovingly applied so you NEVER EVER EVER SEE IT OR HEAR IT EVER EVER EVER.

OK i just needed to rant before I went back to that ten reel movie that really should be on seven reels. AAAAUGH....

------------------
"If it's not worth doing, I have allready been there and done it"

Posted by Aaron Sisemore (Member # 145) on 02-05-2000, 03:00 AM:

thats nothing... without rehashing the subject too many times:

You should have handled Branagh's 'Hamlet'.. A film that would have fit easily on 12 reels spanned over TWENTY reels, most about 5-10 minutes in length! Totally unacceptable in my book.... and thats FIVE 4-reel cans! Ouch! (and a bigger ouch for the poor souls that had to deal with 20 reels in *70MM*...)

Aaron

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 02-05-2000, 04:06 AM:

...like me.

But, oh...the image! It made all that build up work worthwhile.

We asked Columbia if it would be okay to leave it to the twelve spools but they said that would stuff up their inventory. (!)

A great, great film but only in its complete 4 hour version. Branaugh wanted to film the entire text and man, does it work. Actually, it was interesting because we had just finished Romeo and Juliet at our theatre where you could understand about one in every three words. Then along came these fabulous Shakespearean actors and 6 track mag and you could understand every word.

A delicacy unfortunately all too rare.

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 02-05-2000, 09:37 AM:

I'm guessing, but I think that the reason there is sometimes very little film on a reel is because that's what is left over after editing. The director makes his 'cut,' but then the producer insists on removing scenes or re-arranging that scene... I don't know exactly when c/o marks are added to a film, but I bet it's pretty early in the editing process. There are probably certain editing critia that must be followed to create a c/o, (a slightly poor c/o during a scene with quick cutting might ruin it) so it's not a minor amount of work, They don't want to 'reset' the c/o marks based on the new edit.

Does seem a bit lazy, though. And, don't even get me started on why we don't have ELR's!

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 02-07-2000, 08:51 AM:

I'm very sad that so few people were able the see a 70mm print of Branaugh's "Hamlet".

The exquisite picture and sound quality shows how good film can be.

The technology developed in the 1950's (e.g., 70mm Todd-AO, Ultra-Panavision) was very good; with modern film stocks, the results are GREAT! With 70mm DTS, the added cost and hassles of magnetic sound is no longer an excuse. The greatly improved image quality of 65mm origination even shows through in 35mm print-downs, and I could even see it on the recent broadcast of "Hamlet" on TNT cable (NTSC) television.

Kodak makes the film. (It costs about twice as much as 35mm, as expected, since it is twice as wide.) Panavision, Cinema Products Corporation and Arriflex have modern 65mm cameras. Technicolor, Deluxe and CFI have the 70mm printing and processing machines. DTS has 70mm digital sound. Over a thousand theatres have the 70mm projectors. Where's the product?

I wrote about the "Splendor of 70mm" in the December 1998 and March 1999 "Film Notes for Reel People":
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/newsletters/reel/december98/pppp.shtml
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/newsletters/reel/march99/pytlak.shtml

For an article on the producton of "Hamlet", see the February 1997 issue of "Film Notes for Reel People":
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/newsletters/reel/february97/index.shtml

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Professional Motion Imaging
Eastman Kodak Company
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 02-07-2000, 11:11 AM:

It's more than just the cost of negative, though. Cameras and lenses are probably more expensive (does anyone have an idea how much?) A director might not be able to use some unusual lenses that won't work with 70mm. Lighting may have to be changed. Sets must be made to look better, because you will see any imperfections. Focus pullers and cameramen have to be more careful.

I'm not saying it costs too much, (Hamlet seemed to cost a reasonable amount) but it's not a trival decision.

Although, I am at a lost to explain why regular 35mm production are not printed to 70mm. It still looks better.

Oh, yeah! Why bother when we have E-projectors. They're so much better than film! How silly of me.....

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 02-07-2000, 12:39 PM:

The cameras themselves really arent the issue as far as cost goes. The arriflex 65mm camera and the arriflex 35mm series all rent for about the same cost.

There are multiple issues at work when producers decide to work with 35mm as opposed to 65mm:

1. Cost of film. The film is twice as much in cost and developing.

2. Editing. Facilities charge much more to edit 65mm than 35mm. Also there are not many facilities left that will still do any 65mm work making it much more expensive at the places that still do.

3. Director of Photographers and Cameramen. There are few left that have any experience working with 65mm and as a result the ones who do charge much more.

There are so many reasons to shoot 65mm, but when actors and directors and cameramen eat into 65 percent of your budget before you ever get into pre-production, 65mm becomes a passing fancy and you start looking for ways to cut the budget.

how great the Matrix would have looked if Keanu didnt demand that 10 million bucks and they put it into 65mm shooting.

Another point is that many directors PREFER to work with anamorphics on 35mm. For some reason they cant see the film without it.

------------------
"If it's not worth doing, I have allready been there and done it"

Posted by Ben Wales (Member # 92) on 02-07-2000, 04:33 PM:

Yep, I had made up all 20 reeels of "Hamlet" in 70mm on three occasions!, and on one occasion have to move part 1 (reels 1-14) of a platter on my own, even today I still did know how I did that.

"Hamlet" was well shot and now looks it will go down in history as the last of those old 'mag prints',
but the taxi driver who delivered all 70mm reels on a cross over last time we had shown it from another cinema was not impressed at all.

Posted by Martin Frandsen (Member # 74) on 02-07-2000, 04:40 PM:

The solution will be to make 70mm prints from films shot in 35mm, it looks better than 35mm, beats digital projectors and is cheaper. Very easy for me to say but will anyone do it? are the studios willing to pay 2 times as much for the same print? sadly to say i dont think so

Posted by Aaron Sisemore (Member # 145) on 02-08-2000, 01:25 AM:

John [Pytlak] said it all at ShoWest last year after the DLP demo: If they had compared DLP to 70mm from a 65mm negative, film would have blown DLP away, no contest!

LONG LIVE FILM!

-Aaron

Posted by Chris Wootten (Member # 283) on 02-08-2000, 05:07 AM:

I suppose we all get a bit peeved when any film arrives on more reels than was really necessary. The time taken to ensure a professional make-up, istime well spent, but when one opens the cans to find a feature on seven reels when it would have fitted on only five.........well.
Can anyone find out for sure, just when the C/O cues are put on to the feature? I am sure a lot would like to know.
My single screen, reel to reel with change overs is only small, but I get an enormous amount of satisfaction out of a flawless presentation.

I can not see FILM being replaced in my life time...........I agree with Aaron.....long live film.....

Chris

Posted by Stephen Jones (Member # 16) on 02-08-2000, 07:18 PM:

I remember making up hamlet which was a marathon and it was only the 35mm print.I did happen to see it in 70mm later and as always with 70mm it was impressive.The 35mm print that I screened was also very sharp and good Digital sound.When I said to the newbies that they should see it in 70mm they said whats 70mm?I soon explained it to them and suggested that they go and see it for themselves.As mentioned in this thread 70mm blows digital projection out of the water so does a good 35mm also.Long live film!

------------------