Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Mission Impossible II prints

This is topic Mission Impossible II prints 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=001023

Posted by Sean M. Grimes (Member # 445) on 05-25-2000, 04:35 AM:

Just a quick throwout has anyone else had horrible horrible print quality of MI2? I have checked with three other theaters in my area and they are all really really bad...

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-25-2000, 05:15 AM:

No problems here except for one reel on the 3rd print that came tails out (all other reels were heads out). The ends of the reel had fingerprints all over it and both ends were scratched. All prints were new.

Posted by Jim Ziegler (Member # 86) on 05-25-2000, 05:24 AM:

I had to replace 4 reels total for my three prints. 3 of the reels had large black splotches all over them. The 4th one had massive color shifting, and almost faded totally out.

Once again, further proof that Deluxe sucks..

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-25-2000, 05:30 AM:

Sean:

What problems did your prints have to be considered "horrible horrible print quality"?
Might they have been mishandled before as previews? Were all the reels affected, or was the same reel in each print the one with the problem?

------------------
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 John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-25-2000, 05:40 AM:

Jim:

Were the reels with "large black splotches" all the same reel number? Were the splotches on the left side of the screen? What were the print numbers and magenta edgeprint codes, to aid in tracking the problem?

Black splotches are sometimes due to splashes of the silver soundtrack developer (one reason for the upcoming conversion to cyan dye analog soundtracks). If so, they would tend to be on the left hand side of the screen.

Posted by Paul Konen (Member # 41) on 05-25-2000, 08:28 AM:

During reel 3, I had a white tick that would show up at the bottom, go up, go up and go up one more time and then restart the whole process. It was toward the end of the reel for about 5 minutes if not more.

I would guess that it was some kind of sprocket damage during printing.

As Brad mentioned in a previous thread, it is distracting with all the positive dirt that was being displayed. White dots and squiggles.

I also think that during one scene when Ethan is in bed with Naya (aka Hottie), that I saw what appeared to be a hair in the gate. It went away in the next scene so I think it was filmed this way. I will have to watch for that again.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 05-25-2000, 08:42 AM:

I also noticed the "hair in the gate". It was at the bottom of the screen and went away when the scene changed. Looks like this one was rushed out to meet the deadline!

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-25-2000, 09:15 AM:

A "tick" that moves up the image in a regular fashion is usually due to damage from a burr on a roller. For example, if film is running over a 2-inch diameter roller that has a burr or rough spot on it, the mark will occur exactly every 2 X Pi inches, or about every 6.283 inches (assuming no slippage). Since this is not an exact multiple of the 4 X 0.187 = 0.748 inch frame height, the image caused by the burr will be seen on every 8th frame, but repositioned in the frame by 6.283 - (8 X 0.748) = 0.299 inches.

If you measure the exact distance between each "tick" mark and divide by Pi, you can calculate the diameter of the roller that caused the damage. Providing this information when you return the damaged reel will help track and fix the problem.

If there is a stationary black "hair" visible in only one scene, it was likely debris in the camera gate. As Joe said, they may have been too far along into production to reshoot or digitally "erase" the hair in the scene.

If the black "hair" is there throughout the movie, clean your projector aperture!

Posted by Mark Huff (Member # 480) on 05-25-2000, 01:35 PM:

The only problem I had was that Tom Cruise's parents and some of his relatives came to our theatre and had to have a tour of our booth (75 people). I hate when my manager gives tours of our booth and does not tell me ahead of time. Anytime someone is in my booth i want to know. People like to touch things they know nothing about and that burnes me up.

Anyone else have unknown people wandering through their booth.

Posted by Dwayne Caldwell (Member # 417) on 05-25-2000, 03:02 PM:

Hey! I remember there being a hair in a certain scene on my print too! I want to say it was one of those scenes with Tom Cruise and that Thandie Newton chick. I thought it might have been debris in the gate, but it went away on a scene change.

------------------
The man with the magic hands.

Posted by Aaron Sisemore (Member # 145) on 05-25-2000, 06:43 PM:

Black/Purple Splotches? pieces of white tape stuck in random places in a reel? Typical DeLuxe Hollywood for ya. Happens a LOT. and ONLY on prints from DeLuxe Hollywood.

Aaron

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-26-2000, 01:07 AM:

I wonder what genius at Paramount decided not to put the TITLE OF THE FREAKING MOVIE on the one-sheets (except in the small print in the credit block). I had two 50-ish people walk in tonight and wonder what the hell "M I 2" was.

I blame Fox for starting it all with ID4.

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 05-26-2000, 11:53 PM:

I noticed a lot of the thing you people noticed.

What really takes the cake was that we were booked with three prints of this movie and only two of them showed up. The people at ETS told us they'd "look into it" and never called back. We almost had an empty auditorium on opening day until we called home office and got permission to shuffle around some doubled-up houses.

After a lot of calling around we found out that we won't be getting the third print and Paramount KNEW it! They made promises they couldn't keep and when the fit hit the shan they clammed up! It seems a lot of other people were in the same position, too. We were lucky to have gotten what we did get, I hear.

Posted by Russ Kress (Member # 461) on 05-27-2000, 01:26 AM:

DISCLAIMER: This post is intended to be funny and should not be implied to be of an insulting nature to anyone.

Regarding the use of Pi as an investigative tool to ascertain the origin of the hair-like image that appears while Ethan is boinking the hottie...

Maybe we could just report the print number to the printing agent to determine which machine to check? Hello!!!!? <grin>

While you are all in thought mode, can anyone give me a cure for a Ballantyne problem? We have recently re-fitted a theatre to a huge screen/short throw format.

When we open the trap, it hits the lens and knocks it out of allignment.

I bitch about it to everyone, but I am equally guilty of flipping the trap open when threading.

Needless to say, fixing a Ballantyne (Pro-35) lens collar is not something you want to do while an audience is watching!

Help me!!!

Russ

Posted by Sean M. Grimes (Member # 445) on 05-27-2000, 05:35 AM:

John,

On reel one of one and three of my prints and on two prints of one of our other locations in Syracuse there is a white "splotch" that appears randomly starts at the bottom right and moves diagionally up the screen to the left. I have allready ordered new reels and I know that the g.m. has allready at the other theater... I just can't understand why on such a "major" release that the feature would not be more closely inspected. Of course by now, I should be expecting this... But it sill does fry me.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-31-2000, 06:05 AM:

Sean:
From your description, the "white splotch" problem appears the same on several prints, so it was likely a problem with the printing negative that was missed by the lab. Most labs have the processing machine operator inspect prints by looking at a viewer at the tail end of the print processing machine as the prints come off at very high speed. Only a percentage of prints are inspected by projection. So a problem like this could be missed for a few dozen prints, or get through the system if schedules were tight.

This incident again points out the importance of inspecting all prints at the theatre, even new ones, and requesting replacement reels immediately. In addition to inspection on the rewind, I always encourage theatres to have someone watch the entire film early in the run and report any problems that may have been missed by the lab or during the initial rewind inspection.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-31-2000, 12:14 PM:

Russ:

Just ordering a replacement reel without giving details of the exact nature of the problem doesn't help the lab solve the problem. Giving details like "There is a shadow image of a hair on the right side that repeats every 11.97 inches." or "There are dark blotches along the left side of the picture for the first 300 feet of this reel that I think are soundtrack application spills." or "The last 20 seconds of reel 5 has excessive white dirt.", will help the lab find and fix the problem.

The labs really try to do a quality job, given the cost and time contraints of a "Mission Impossible":

"Your job, should you choose to accept it, will be to get thousands of nearly perfect prints into theatres in less than two weeks, at a cost less than your competitors. The final cut negative will be delivered tomorrow (although we may make some last minute changes to the end credits). This tape will self-destruct in 30 seconds."

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 05-31-2000, 01:45 PM:

When I get a bad reel I sometimes write down what the problem is and send it back along with the reel. If it's something like film getting fogged at a lab splice I'll wind up a piece of paper in the reel at that point and make reference to it in the note.

I don't do it as often as I used to because I just get the feeling that nobody gives a flying frog-leap. Otherwise, a lot of these mistakes wouldn't have happened in the first place.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 05-31-2000, 01:49 PM:

John it should read "this negative will self destruct in 30 seconds" or (3000prints later

which is the same thing)

Posted by Randy Rock (Member # 454) on 06-01-2000, 10:56 AM:

Although not directly to the subject, I heartily concur with John's remark about having someone (knowledgeable) watch a screening of the entire print.

I realize there often aren't enough hours in the day, not enough time during the shift, etc. etc.

As most know, there can be presentation-related problems that just don't show up during testing, maintainence, film inspection, etc.

When servicing theaters, I used to be amazed at owner/managers of independants who would call will complaints of "poor sound" etc.- upon questioning they admitted that they had not taken the trouble to investigate the nature of complaint themselves (as in step into the auditorium and look/listen) but that a lot of the patrons were complaining.

More often than not, after repairing the problem, a check of other auditoriums (if applicable) a quick in-auditorium look/listen check would reveal other problems, often a great revelation to the owner or manager.

Sample conversation:

Randy: What happened to the surround speakers in #3?

Owner: Shit! They've been stolen again! They were there a month ago!

I'm certain many of us could go on and on in a similar fashion, whether for chain theaters or independants.

But, as John wisely points out, watching an entire screening can be instructive.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 06-01-2000, 11:20 AM:

My suggestion is to offer free admission to technically-knowledgable "film buffs" the first day of a film's run, in exchange for them filling out a "Theatre Quality Evaluation Report". This could be similar to the Lucasfilm TAP form, which was based on the SMPTE "Theater Quality Evaluation Program" that I helped develop.

I wrote about the SMPTE Theater Quality Evaluation Program in the July 1983 SMPTE Journal, along with a two-page evaluation form. I will mail Brad a copy, so he can post it on Film-Tech. Theatres could modify this evaluation form to customize it to their own needs.

The most important thing is to fix any problems reported. If a new print has a defect, request replacement reels immediately. If there is a problem with picture or sound, get it fixed.

As Randy notes, having someone in the auditorium to actually look/listen to the presentation will greatly improve presentation quality and audience satisfaction.

DOWNLOAD THE SMPTE THEATER QUALITY EVALUATION PROGRAM HERE.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 06-01-2000, 01:57 PM:

When Ed MacCormack was the head of Engineering for Odeon Theatres in Canada he had a sealed box at every theatres for you to deposit the SMPTE evaluation forms into that was sent to head office for him to go through
He always made sure a set of passes were sent out
In a lot of ways many small problems were caught in a timely fashion ensureing for years that Odeon had one of the best presentations in Canada

To bad that system has long since gone

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 06-01-2000, 02:26 PM:

Gordon:

Thanks for the words of encouragement for the value of the SMPTE Theater Quality Evaluation Program.

I hope this discussion on Film-Tech may get a similar idea started again, but at the individual theatre level. Not every theatre has SMPTE members attending (which is why the original program never caught on), but most theatres know of technically-saavy film buffs who would jump at the chance for a free admission in return for a technical critique of the presentation quality.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 06-01-2000, 02:31 PM:

Regrettably some theatres would live in fear of them