Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: R-40 Target Film

This is topic R-40 Target Film 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=000645

Posted by Rob Brooks (Member # 186) on 02-08-2000, 03:19 AM:

Do you know where I can order some R-40 Target Film? Also any booklets on it's uses.
Thanks

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

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 02-08-2000, 07:16 AM:

SMPTE (Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers) test films are available from many theatre equipment dealers, and also directly from the SMPTE:
http://www.smpte.org/testmat/index.html

The 35-PA (RP40) test film is $495 for a 200-foot roll, and $170 for a 50-foot roll. Instructions are included with each film. For evaluating image size and position (e.g., filing aperture plates, adjusting screen masking), a loop of the film may be used. But for evaluation of steadiness, resolution, focus uniformity, anamorphic astigmatism, etc., you should always project an undamaged ROLL of the test film, since a short loop will give misleading results.

------------------
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 Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 02-08-2000, 06:17 PM:

John,

Any idea when PA-35 film will actually be printed vertically centered? Or is the just every single lab in the world printing equally off of this reference?

Posted by Aaron Sisemore (Member # 145) on 02-09-2000, 12:02 AM:

Most dealers carry SMPTE PA35(RP40) in 10-25 and 50-foot lengths, John is right its very expensive. its about $170-175 for 5o feet.... but its now printed on ployestar stock which means it will last a HELL of a lot longer (great for long aperture filing sessions and masking tweeks)

Aaron

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 02-10-2000, 02:23 PM:

You might also want to check out the new Schneider refrence film. Its also polyestar but is a heck of alot more meaningful than RP-40 ever was.
Mark

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 02-10-2000, 10:16 PM:

>>"You might also want to check out the new Schneider refrence film. Its also polyestar but is a heck of alot more meaningful than RP-40 ever was.
Mark"<<

It has too much black area...soaks up a bunch of heat. That is not to say it doesn't have it's merits. BTW it isn't cheap either.

Steve

------------------
"Old projectionists never die, they just changeover!"

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 02-11-2000, 07:02 AM:

Both the SMPTE 35-PA (RP40) and the new Schnieder/Lucasfilm test film are useful. Steve is correct that the large D-max (black) area on the Schnieder film makes it more sensitive to heat problems like focus flutter. SMPTE RP40 was designed to have about equal areas of white and black, so it would respond more like a "typical" scene.

In addition to the instructions provided with the SMPTE 35-PA (RP40) film, reading the actual recommended practice is helpful in understanding how the film is made, and how best to use it. Copies of Standards,Recommended Practices, and Engineering Guidelines are available from SMPTE at:
http://www.smpte.org/stds/index.html

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 02-11-2000, 02:11 PM:

Steve,
Take a hunk of the Schneider film over to Colorlab(right down the street from you). Have them make a positive print for you and be sure to have it done on the printer that has the schmitzer wet gate attachment. I think you'll be impressed. They should be able to do it in estar as well.
Mark

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 02-11-2000, 03:15 PM:

Mark:

Just to caution you that both the Schneider/THX and SMPTE test films may be copyrighted material.

Also, I believe that the Schneider/THX test film was made as a camera original on special-order B&W film perforated with KS perfs, so a contact wet-gate print may shift the image position, and may introduce sharpness loss and considerable printer unsteadiness.

If you make a direct print onto print film, you will not have a "positive image". Are you proposing to use a reversal film, or to make an internegative first?

I'd stick with purchasing some of the original Schneider/THX test film, or some SMPTE 35-PA (RP40), rather than have something that's questionable.

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 02-12-2000, 09:24 AM:

Would it be worthwhile to print a test film on regular print stock? I don't mean reprinting the 35PA; Make a simple pattern, like just rectangles, to show 1.85, 2.39, 1.66. I've seen regular release prints that look pretty good; make a test film using good quality, but conventional equipment. Use good cameras for a negative, but not instrumentation cameras; slower step printing, rather than high-speed printing.

Also, what about a light meter that is less accurate, but cheaper? The Minolta that evryone uses goes to 0.1 fL, but even the SMPTE spec's allow +/- 2.0 fL.

If you could buy test film that was only accurate to say, 0.005" rather than to 0.001", but cost $25 for a 50 foot roll rather than $170, would you buy some?

Or, if a light meter that was only accurate to say, 1.0 fL (still well within spec's) but only cost $500 (rather than $2600)?

If most theater owners just will not pay these prices, wouldn't it be better to have less accurate, but more avaiable tools?

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 02-12-2000, 01:48 PM:

The spectra Cine is about 1300.00 dollars and works very well

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 02-12-2000, 06:32 PM:

Wow John,
I pulled out a hunk of the Schneider film and You are right about the perfs. I thought it was on camera stock. I have had RP-40 printed on color stock in the past at the lab mentioned. It came out quite good.
Mark

Posted by Stefan Scholz (Member # 147) on 02-13-2000, 11:22 AM:

The Schneider film is an improved DEFA test film, and is direct camera on Estar base soundtrack negative film.
As all test films are considered measuring instruments, copying and printing would ruin their ability to work as a standard. For certaiun works, like mask filing etc, a copy might do, but I do not recommend this.
And running loops will probably cause heat flutter.
For precise work, an uncut roll (1000 ft) is preferable, but expensive, and outrageous for daily work-

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 02-14-2000, 09:11 AM:

"The spectra Cine is about 1300.00 dollars and works very well"

Wow, I didn't know there was a light meter that cheap...

Of course, to most owners, anything over $19.95 is too much... Maybe we can get Ronco back in biz!

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 02-14-2000, 09:23 AM:

Actually Stefan,
The reason for printing the RP-40 was to check the labs B&H printer for steadiness. I was on a film a number of years back and we were having problems with Technicolor N.Y. and a bit too much side weave in the dailies. We had RP-40, and camera double exposure tests printed by Technicolor, and at Colorlab. I was amazed at how good the printed RP-40 from Colorlab looked. Yes, it was easily good enough to file aperatures from, and almost as good as the original. The stuff from the other lab was awful and conformed our suspicions. The B&H printer at Colorlab was equipped with a Schmitzer wet gate and that I suspect is what made the difference. Oddly, I recently worked on a front projection job for a Discovery Channel commercial and the D.P. on the shoot also used Colorlab and the same B&H/Schmitzer printer to have his dailies printed. Yes, a long length of RP-40 is the only way to check things out properly.
Mark

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 02-14-2000, 01:48 PM:

John Walsh:

I agree that it would be great to have less expensive test films. The dilemma is how much accuracy should be sacrificed for price. Both the Schneider/THX and SMPTE 35-PA (RP40) test films are produced on a step printer using registration pins, to assure optimum steadiness and accurate image positioning. At most, these printers run a few frames per second, so production costs are high.

The $495 cost for a 200-foot roll of SMPTE 35-PA may seem high. But with reasonable care, that ESTAR-base test film can be used hundreds of times before it wears out. So certifying the projection performance of a theatre costs less than the price of a single ticket to that theatre.

Likewise, the cost of a quality Screen Luminance Meter is pro-rated over thousands of uses. Screen luminance and uniformity should be checked on a regular basis, and certainly after anything (e.g., xenon lamp alignment and focus, reflector cleaning, etc.) is changed. Look at it this way: without a meter, you might accidently "hot spot" and cause permanent heat damage to a print that costs more than the meter.

Just as you wouldn't want a back-yard mechanic to diagnose your modern automobile's emission system without the proper tools, it is "penny wise and pound foolish" to run a theatre complex without the proper tools to evaluate projection quality.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 02-14-2000, 02:28 PM:

YES! <applauding> VERY well put, John!!!

I could see a use for regular rolls of a "centering" target pattern, but for any serious work, it is my opinion the PA35 should be used.

I make all of my loops between 8 and 10 feet and carefully loop them over the upper magazine feed roller and take care in orienting it so that it doesn't get scratched. I find they last significantly longer than just making loops barely large enough to do the job and letting them slap all over the projector and scrape along things. I also make ultrasonic splices to form the loop and that helps to keep the wear and breakage possibility down. (If only theaters would purchase those ultrasonics as a standard item!)

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 02-14-2000, 03:32 PM:

Brad:

Thanks . I think all of us on the Film Handler's Forum agree on the importance of having the right tools and equipment. The challenge is convincing the non-technical people who sign the checks of the need.

Your use of an ultrasonic splicer is a good example of how having the best tool for the job can improve quality. As functional and good as tape splices are, they do stretch, bend, get sticky, discolor, get dirty, etc. with age.

As you already know, a properly-made polyester splice on an ultrasonic splicer is almost indestructable, and very reliable. I would hope that larger theatre complexes or anyone really concerned with quality presentation might be able to convince management that $3200 is a good investment. (One possible line: "You'll never have to buy any splicing tape" ).

For those who have never seen or used an ultrasonic splicer, here is a link to Metric Splicer, Inc., one of the primary manufacturers:
http://www.metricsplicer.com

The particular model for motion picture use is the Model 3001:
http://www.metricsplicer.com/3001/html

A competing ultrasonic splicer has just been introduced by Hollywood Film Company:
http://www.hollywoodfilmco.com/Splicer.htm

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 02-14-2000, 03:41 PM:

Oops!

The correct link for the Metric Model 3001 ultrasonic splicer is:
http://www.metricsplicer.com/3001.html

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 02-14-2000, 07:36 PM:

Oh, don't get me wrong: I want good quality test materials, too. It's just that owners will not buy them, regardless of how the cost could be justified.

The chain I work for now is nowhere near "cheap" (the last 80 screens we built from scratch were all bi-amped with CP65's or CP500's and about 70% are digital.) I mean, I'm sure there are better, but I think that's pretty good for a small chain.

Yet, they would never approve $3200 for a splicer, or even $1300 for a meter, and I think most other chains would do the same. How many theaters has anyone been to with their own meter or an ultrasonic splicer? For me (in 25 years) it's 1 and 0! Usually owners will say: the tech guy brings his meter, we will use his. (Then, of course, they try to never call him!) I admit, I have seen loops of the (B&W) RP40 around.

But, I understand the reluctance to manufacture lower quality test materials: The potental for abuse is high. People will buy the "cheap" test film then use it as a reference standard- all kinds of weirdness could result.

That's why I thought the chart on it would be simple, like that older SMPTE test film with just rectangles on it (RP 110-1983.) Only with a checkerboard pattern on it so it doesn't get too hot. Maybe a simple anamorphic test, shutter ghosting, etc. Good enough for checking the scope lens, shutter ghosting, centering the framing knob, masking, basic projector positioning and tilt, and an "image cropped or not" test.

It would not be meant for focus/resolution, lamp alignment, lens aberrations and jitter/weave. These are not tests done routinely. There would not be any patterns that could be used for these purposes, to prevent misuse.

Now, I'll annoy everyone just a little longer, then I'll shaddup; I promise!

I think the 35PA is "overkill." I mean, it's not just accurate; every frame is almost a work of art. And, you'd want that for critical testing on projectors or printers. But, for 90% of users, a cheaper test film would do. IMHO.

OK, I'm done. Please don't flame me, or let the air out of my tires.......

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 02-15-2000, 07:38 AM:

John:

The SMPTE did once have a "35mm Visual Test Film for Theater Use". The 35-VT film was 450 feet long, printed on color stock, and could be used for simple checks of image size, steadiness, sharpness, etc. It was printed on a continuous contact printer, and was NOT intended for critical alignment. It was similar in concept to the P16-PP-C "Jiffy 16mm Projection Evaluation Film". The 35mm film was not a big seller, and when the negative wore out, SMPTE decided to discontinue making the film, rather than produce a new negative.

There will be a meeting of the SMPTE Theatrical Projection Technology Committee at ShoWest in March. You are welcome to ask the Committee to consider developing a new 35mm subjective test film. The current chairman is Bobby Pinkston of Dolby: bwp@dolby.com

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 02-15-2000, 08:29 AM:

I _like_ the 16mm "Jiffy Test" film! I got one for $10 a couple of years ago and have used it countless times. Sure, it's not a precision test film, but it's great for matching volume levels for two projectors and EQ'ing an unfamiliar room/sound system by ear. I wouldn't use it to verify correctness of a permanent theatre installation, but it's great when doing shows with smaller portable equipment.