Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: How To Make a Grown Cinematographer Cry :(

This is topic How To Make a Grown Cinematographer Cry :( 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=000923

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-02-2000, 06:25 AM:

Recently, a dozen influential cinematographers visited Kodak in Rochester to discuss the future of the motion picture industry and Kodak's continuing efforts to improve film and presentation quality.

During the discussions, they were asked how theatrical presentation of their movies could be improved. The five problems they cited most frequently were:

1. Theatres that severely crop the normal aspect ratios for "scope" (2.39:1) and "flat" (1.85:1), destroying their compositions. They specifically cited those theatre circuits that have a policy of showing both scope and flat with a common "one size fits all" aspect ratio (e.g., 2.00:1).

2. Theatres that show scope and flat at a common image width, so that the 2.39:1 scope image is actually smaller than 1.85:1 flat, with a "letterbox" appearance.

3. Misframed images, such that negative splices are seen in 2.39:1 scope, and compositions are ruined in 1.85:1 flat.

4. Poor attention to good focus, with pictures being shown out of focus until someone complains.

5. Dim pictures. Too many theatres are significantly below the SMPTE standard screen luminance of 16 footlamberts (55 candelas per square metre).

------------------
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 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com

Posted by Pat Moore (Member # 380) on 05-02-2000, 06:40 AM:

John;
To a great extent, these comments are right on. One surprise to me is that unsteady and/or damaged (scratched, etc.) images are not on the top five list.
Cropped images are a sad state of affairs, especially when it's so easy to avoid with a little planning. Especially sad are cinemas that go with a fixed 2:1 screen ratio, and there are a couple of majors proclaiming great quality that do just that in too many theatres.
The industry does seem to be moving away from common width screens, at least a little bit, but that's been one of the compromises coming from Stadium seating and increased room heights. I imagine folks on the production end consider the Flat image to get the larger picture in these theatres, even though image quality suffers so much due to the increased magnification.
Light levels have been a problem a few years ago, It seems like the exhibitors are doing a better job of properly lighting a screen with proper equipment specification from the start. After that it comes down to maintenance and operators to maintain quality. Be a lot easier without that common side picture though, wouldn't it?
That said, it's nice to see a few concerned exhibitors taking care to show the whole picture and use side masking, the way it really should be done.
Any mention about print quality out of Hollywood?
Thanks, John.

Pat

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-02-2000, 07:07 AM:

Pat:

Unsteadiness was mentioned, but they considered it more of a lab issue than a theatre issue, as it was limited to a few specific productions.

They seemed to feel that the physical quality and durability of the prints have improved in the last few years, although I'll bet that most of them don't often go to second-run houses.

Posted by Bryan Redemske (Member # 354) on 05-02-2000, 07:41 AM:

i suspect ours might be a little cropped. i think we're closer to 2.35:1 instead of the 2.39:1. it seems like that's the number that comes to mind. the other theatre in town DEFINITELY crops images - and therefore gets their asses kicked by us every weekend.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-02-2000, 08:41 AM:

Bryan:

Beg, borrow or steal (or better yet, buy!) some SMPTE 35-PA (RP40) test film to precisely check the size and placement of your projected image.

Standard SMPTE 195 specifies the projected image size of "scope" to be 0.825 X 0.690 inches. For 1.85:1 "flat", the projected image size should be 0.825 X 0.446 inches. (For the more enlightened rest of the world, "scope" is 20.96 X 17.53 millimetres, and 1.85:1 is 20.96 X 11.33 millimetres).

SMPTE Standards and test films can be purchased from the SMPTE at:
http://www.smpte.org

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 05-02-2000, 08:52 AM:

FWIW, my own comments:

Item 1 (Cropping): I find that many service techs don't know how to figure out the correct lens size and order a lens two or three sizes too short to make sure; or they have to order the lenses early in the construction, and the finished screen size is smaller then orginally planned. Personally, I think many techs don't know how. Some use those "slide-rule" type calculators. I find them to be too far off.

I've never seen a paper on figuring out exact lens sizes in trade publications. I wrote one, but the tech we were using at the time looked at it and said it was too much work. Our new tech wrote a Lotus program based on it, so no problems any more.

Also, depending on the theater, (throw/screen size) it might be price. While the price (using Schneider sugg.list) for a 28mm vs. a 30mm lens is the same, there is a $260 difference for 26mm/28mm (and a $300 difference for 24mm/26mm.) Someone might be tempted to save a few bucks, especially if you're buying for an 18-plex.

Showing all formats at 2:1 is cheapness, plain and simple. I don't know how to fight that.

Item 2 (Common width): I have mixed feelings about this. While one person might say; "Scope is smaller than flat: Bad." I would say, "The biggest image possible without cropping is shown." The screen size has been limited somehow. What sense is there in making flat smaller? We know about light loss when shooting out of the lower part of the lens, but people are more likley to complain aboue screen size that brightness. A correct-sized lamp can help mitigate this.

Item 3 (Framing): How about applying VistaVision-type "F"s in addition to or in place of c/o marks? Also, distributors are poor in marking what format a print is (1.75, 1.66, etc.) although, I admit most are 1.85 or 2.39.

Item 4 (Focus): Lack of manpower at theaters (which is close to cheapness, but not always.) Is it possible to make an auto-focusing device at a practical cost? I guess not, because theaters don't even want to pay for remote focus, let alone the "smarts" for auto-focus.

Item 5 (Dim Light): I think this is like #1 above: Lack of knowledge and cheapness. Don't know how to fight that.

Theaters that are too cheap should be denied product, but I have no idea how that could be legally done. While I feel e-projectors are a lot farther off than most people think, they will be here before these problems are solved!

Posted by Bryan Redemske (Member # 354) on 05-02-2000, 08:58 AM:

John,

how would i go about measuring that? do i take a micrometer to an apeture plate and go to it or is there something a little more scientific? i know we don't have test film, but i do work tonight and want to see what the actual size is.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-02-2000, 09:09 AM:

Bryan:

The SMPTE 35-PA (RP40) test film is the best way to measure the projected image dimensions. Although the physical dimensions of the aperture plate are important, they don't tell you about image position, and don't take the screen masking into account (normally, the projected image is slightly oversized, so the masking forms the edge of the image as defined by the SMPTE 35-PA test film). Don't change aperture, masking or lens without using SMPTE 35-PA to check the dimensions on the screen.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-02-2000, 09:26 AM:

John Walsh:

There is an autofocus device available for 35mm projectors! A Swedish company "Autograf Cinema Systems" has a patented automatic focusing device:
http://www.autograf.se

I'd personally like to see projectors equipped with remote focus devices that can be adjusted from the auditorium, up close to the screen.

As far as "cheapness" and "lack of knowledge" driving decisions that hurt presentation quality, don't get me started... We need to fight that!

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 05-02-2000, 10:49 AM:

Note to Bryan: If you tell us what your throw, screen size and lens sizes are, we can tell you if you're at least close. Although I don't think we could tell (by just measuring) if your screen is set for 2.35 or 2.39. JP is right; the best way is with test film. Many equipment dealers will buy a roll of 35-PA and sell you short lengths. It's made with polyester base now, so it's pretty tough and will last a long time. From SMPTE, 50 feet is $170. You only need about 10 feet, and if your dealer will chop that much off, he might only charge $40. We might find 5 people here who would be willing to split the cost if we post a request.

Note to John P.: I looked at that auto-focus device, and it is pretty cool! But can you see any owner buying, say 18 of them, either for a new theater, or to retofit?

Also, did you ever see that old SMPTE article about the radio-remote control framing and focus V8 projectors at a Rank theater in England? And the box an operator could carry right up to the screen!? Sad to think that- 30 years ago, people were ahead of us now, at least quality-wise.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-02-2000, 12:21 PM:

John Walsh:

In our Kodak screening rooms, we have custom-made remote focus from the auditorium using either selsyn motors, or a geared-down bi-directional DC motor to drive the focus knob. So I guess that I'm spoiled. Someone always "focuses on the grain" from upfront to assure optimum sharpness.

It would be great to have a remote focus option on regular theatre projectors, perhaps using an IR remote control operated from the auditorium. Even with a focus telescope, it's sometimes difficult to focus well from the "worst seat in the house" behind a booth viewing port.

Posted by Bryan Redemske (Member # 354) on 05-02-2000, 12:35 PM:

JW- i'm going to check on that tonight. we have it all written on the wall by each port. more news tomorrow.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-02-2000, 12:52 PM:

John,
I have done location dailies for over 35 features and have worked with alot of the top D.P.'s. I often asked if they were going to follow the film through to release and the usual reply was that they only go as far as a complete color timed answer print and thats was all they were obligated to do(but a few did go all the way...and only a few). When you think about that its pretty sad that they don't want to control the quality all the way through to release printing as thats where the screw ups always happen. With the pitiful quality prints that come out of all the major labs you would think that there would be some interest in trying to straighten them out. Unfortunately this as a rule seems not to be.
Mark

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-02-2000, 01:33 PM:

I certainly would NOT lay all the blame for problems like unsteadiness on the lab's doorstep. The short timelines and cost contraints of today's movie industry sometimes don't allow the labs the time or money to do the job in the optimum way. For example, for optimum steadiness a slow pin-registered step printer should be used when printing the master positive to duplicate negative. In most cases, labs are forced to use a continuous contact printer for this critical step because of time and cost constraints. Irwin Young of DuArt Labs presented an excellent paper on this topic to the SMPTE several years ago, urging a return to pin-registered printing for the intermediate stages.

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 05-02-2000, 02:14 PM:

I'm an operator in a theater, so it pains me to admit that (by far) most of a film's presentation problems are caused by/at the theater. The chain I work for really buys good equipment and installs it correctly, but we have cheapened out on labor, mostly by usher/operator. While the "reject rate" of prints has gone up, but I bet it's something like 0.01% twenty years ago vs. 0.1% now.

Of course, if you get a bad print, it sucks and I'm not saying it doesn't. But if you have limited resources, you go after the big problem causes first, and that's the theaters. Distributors deserve a big heaping hunk of blame, too, for promoting the current state affairs. But if it were me, the labs would be about the last place I go.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-02-2000, 03:08 PM:

John,
It would be nice if everything would be printed on a pin registered printer but that is not really necessary. There are printers that can run at at least half the speed of todays modern H.S. printers that can deliver an incredible print. Thats realistic to do but the studios don't care.
I have a friend that works at BHP and according to him not too many labs(even some of the big ones) can even do a proper alignment on a B&H panel printer or let alone service it. There are a few that can though but it requires a special alignment jig and removal of the printer lamphouse.
Yes, some labs can do a very good job, and I've seen camera tests actually printed that were almost as steady as the neg. These were done on a B&H printer equipped with a Schmitzer wet gate.
Unfortunately it seems like even some of the larger labs don't really care. That attitude will only speed up the unfortunate,inevitable conversion to digital projection,and a film will no longer be a film but something relegated to museums.
Mark

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-02-2000, 03:40 PM:

Mark:

I agree that most continuous contact printers can do a fine job when printing a "short-pitch" original negative to a "long-pitch" print, especially "wet". The pin registration is needed when you have to go from camera original negative, to master positive, to duplicate negative, to release print, where you can't maintain the ideal short-pitch to long-pitch printing situation for every step. The "slippage" that occurs is where the loss of sharpness and steadiness can creep in. Even the highest speed contact printers are capable of very good results when printing short-pitch negative to release print.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 05-02-2000, 06:52 PM:

Our theatre averages about 2.37 in most cases. To me that is acceptable. 2.39 might be a bit better since it would help eliminate the "flash" caused by a negative slice that somtimes appear, although I haven't seen one of those at my theatre since I locked down all of the framing knobs. Threading or splicing out of frame is not allowed.

Unfortunately, we also have scissor masking I think the designers were just trying to go for a standard screen width, and that just meant that the biggest picture would be flat. Sort of backwards, if you ask me.

Dim pictures are also not allowed at my theatre. If a picture looks like it is getting dim, I check the hours on the bulb. If they aren't too high, I try refocusing. If that doesn't work, then the bulb gets changed.

The focus knobs are RARELY touched at my theatre. I am actually amazed at that. Feature after feature seem to retain focus just fine. We always check the focus and all that, but rarely will it need adjusting. No complaints, either.

Posted by Russ Kress (Member # 461) on 05-02-2000, 09:22 PM:

Our theater was recently re-fitted to stadium seating and all screen sizes were maximized to the limits allowed by each auditorium.

Unfortunately, the best "compromise" between 1.85:1 and 2.35:1 (in the public's eye) was to maintain both aspect ratios to be "wall to wall" in all but the largest auditorium. We strive to keep scope product in that house. Our aspect ratios are correct.

I realize that scope is (was intended to be) more dramatic in appearance, but the simple fact is that these guys know their films will eventually be shown on TV. Thus they still use 1.85.

We either standardize the aspect ratio of film, or we standardize the aspect ratio of TV (to what we want).

Either way, we will finally have a finite dimension to use when we build a theater.

The contractor problem is easy enough to fix (on our last 11 plex, we sent back 20 of the 22 lenses ordered before construction was completed).

These cinematographers seem like pretty smart guys to me. They might just appreciate an honest effort on the part of exhibition to secure the integrity of their images on our screens.

Contractors simply do NOT understand how critical the required dimensions are.

Until they do, or until the industry agrees upon a standard aspect ratio, Magna-Com stock should be a safe bet.

We didn't compromise aspect ratios this time, but we were honestly tempted.

It's one thing to preach purity to the congregation. It is another thing to be up at 4:00 A.M. cutting plates knowing that you have to be bright eyed and bushy tailed the next day at grand opening.

Yes, I am management (don't hate me!). I also have to cut plates and set A-Chains and equalizers the night before. I just lack the luxury of having a tech department to blame when things go south (or management to blame when I am lacking parts or equipment).

Viewing this from both sides of the fence, just pick an aspect ratio and stick with it. It is simpler for management, and from the tech side, "The fewer moving parts, the better".

I am new here so feel free to squash me, but I have noticed a definate devision between management and projection. HELLO!!!!? Why do you think people come to the theater? It is the film. Nobody gets a craving for popcorn and gets drawn to your popcorn popper! (I fix those too). They come to see movies. Their desire to see a film is what sells your popcorn.

They might not even know what aspect ratio they are looking at, but they DO notice if something isn't right.

All they really know is that if they sit down to watch U-571, they are subjected to honestly being afraid because the projection and sound systems deployed against them are fully capable of placing them in that place, and at that time in history.

That's what we do.

Guys, agree on a picture aspect ratio and live with it! (grin)

Russ
(not a Jedi handler yet, but I bet I'm older than a few!)

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 05-02-2000, 10:29 PM:

Hi Russ!

Anyone cutting plates at 4:00 AM is OK by us!

I think that we should have at least two ratios. I would no sooner get rid of that than I would force painters to only have one size frame and canvas. Designing a theater to properly show 1.85, 2.39 and even 2.21 is not rocket science. Even the new TV's have multiple ratios. Contractors must be made to understand- by putting the specs in the original design bid and rejecting anything that's not to spec. Also I find that, if properly set up for a given screen, there is less than a 3% difference between flat and scope (SMPTE allows 5%.) So I find that Magna-Com's not only reduce light and are expensive, but are not even needed. (There are times when they are needed, but it's very rare, and not in a regular "two aspect-ratio only" multiplex.)

If your theater has mostly adjustable top masking, but everthing else is done correctly, I would still think it was a good place. It's when several problems are put together that wigg people out!

But, feel free to squash me too!

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-02-2000, 11:04 PM:

Magnacoms are nothing but light sponges and resolution killers. They should be outlawed by the federal government! Any regular theater that uses them when they COULD be using a straight lens (even something as small as a 25mm) just plain DOES NOT CARE about their presentation! They are the lazy engineer's lens calculator.

Don't get me started on this one. It's a real sore spot and there are actually techs who maintain that NO loss of light or loss of resolution is encountered by using a Magnacom. I've done side by side tests and the difference in a typical theater is incredible. Gee, where's those dark corners in flat coming from that aren't there in scope? Duh...it's the Magnacom's lens barrel! Don't get me started on this one.

Posted by George Roher (Member # 91) on 05-02-2000, 11:55 PM:

I think we should continue having different aspect ratios. I like some variation in the viewing experience.

Regarding theatres with cropped images: I have (unfortunately) run films in a few auditoriums that horribly cropped both 2.39:1 and 1:1.85 and it amazed me that customers put up with it. What they complained about was the temperature and the volume.

A friend of mine told me he went in to work a few days ago and found that one of his "threaders" was running a film with the wrong lens! No one had complained. When he switched to the correct lens, a woman came out and yelled that the picture was messed up and asked him change it back. Getting these people to complain about cropping and common width screens is going to be difficult. The longer exhibitors get away with murder, the more conditioned the customers get to accepting a compromised presentation.

Posted by Pat Moore (Member # 380) on 05-03-2000, 07:56 AM:

Wow, busy topic.
First, anybody out there cropping less than 2-3% of the height and width probably ought to be pretty happy with the overall situation. It's the 2:1 compromised screens that are the real tragedy here, or a flat picture that's cutting down what little height there is on the film.
"Magnacoms" (and the newer technology Zoom Converters) are a tool, and a very useful one when they are properly utilized. I've done comparisons as well and have never seen the light drop-off you describe. If anything, they usually pass more light and improve the overall depth of focus since a longer focal length primary lens is employed. The biggest fault I see is geometric distortion.
If the corners are dark on a flat picture the converter is either coupled to a lens that's too short a focal length for its design, or a required adapter has not been used to properly couple the two items.
That said, sure, I'd rather use a single lens wherever possible. Sometimes other options have to be considered.
Nice to see so many people trying to do things right.

Pat

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-03-2000, 01:38 PM:

I'm speaking purely of "Magnacoms" and not the recent Schneiders. This is also in reference to typical stadium seating theaters and not auditoriums that have a long throw. Of course, the Magnacoms are in their almost fully compressed state with the least amount of magnification. I have never seen anyone use the proper closeup couplers with Magnacoms, but even with them the light is diminished.

Posted by Russ Kress (Member # 461) on 05-03-2000, 11:13 PM:

WOW!!

I was kidding!!! The question asked on that morning at 4:00 AM was "Do we want a Magna-com, or a beer!!?"

As a group, we would NEVER compromise!! Every individual in that room also thought, "I'd really like to go to sleep now!" *grin*

We actually had (with tape measure in hand) Mitch Bryson on the phone saying "Okay, here's the REAL throw!"

"Next Day Air" is a beautiful thing!

I guess my real question is: Wider or taller? Which is the best compromise between 1.85:1 and 2.35:1?

Talk amongst yourselves,

Russ

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-04-2000, 02:10 AM:

I'm not understanding your question Russ. You mean which is better: "side masking or top masking"???

If so, then side masking ALWAYS!