Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Patriot looks grainy

This is topic Patriot looks grainy 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=001139

Posted by Harry Robinson (Member # 265) on 06-29-2000, 08:45 AM:

Well, my wife and I went to the multiplex to see the new "Mel" movie last night. This isn't a review.
For the third time recently I have noticed an excessive amount of grain on the screen. Green mile looked soft all the way through, and The Patriot would drift from crisp to grainy depend on how bright the lighting was in the scene. Some of the landscape shots looked really listless.
Someone tell me if I'm wrong:
Could it be that they are not throwing enough light on the screen? Both of these films were in the same auditorium at the Regal Green Hills Multiplex in Nashville.
I saw Fantasia 2000 in a THX room at the new Carmike and it poppped off the screen. Just makes me wonder...

Posted by Pat Moore (Member # 380) on 06-29-2000, 09:13 AM:

Not seeing the same thing you saw on screen, of course, it's hard to tell. If you're actually seeing film grain I would say there's at least adequate light on screen. How close to the screen were you? I imagine it was in a larger house. I believe these are FLAT films, right? Can't remember, but that would contribute to an image that's not as good as it should be. I'm in one of those "I hate flat films" moods this week...

Posted by Dave Cutler (Member # 515) on 06-29-2000, 10:02 AM:

Actually "Patriot" is scope, and I think "The Green Mile" was too, hard to remember them all. Anyway, I know what you are talk about, it has something to do with how the movie was filmed. There most likely isn't anything wrong with what the theatre is doing. Especially if it's only part of the movie, if it was the entire movie well then it could be a light problem.

------------------
Dave Cutler

"Do or do not, there is no try."

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 06-29-2000, 11:24 AM:

Was The Patriot shot in Super 35? That would explain extra graininess and contrast problems.

Posted by Dave Cutler (Member # 515) on 06-29-2000, 11:50 AM:

I think that is was. I thought that could be the issue also. But why then isn't the whole film grainy? Do they ever shoot only part of a film in Super 35? That would explain why some scenes are grainy and other aren't.

------------------
Dave Cutler

"Do or do not, there is no try."

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 06-29-2000, 03:44 PM:

The Green Mile was flat.
The Patriot was scope.

I do believe the Patriot was shot in Super35. As lighting is increased, the cinematographer no doubt used a finer grain film (which requires more light). But for night scenes and the like, a faster negative stock would've had to be used to properly expose the image. Was the graininess scenes during non-bright outdoor points?

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 06-29-2000, 04:19 PM:

The last Mel film I worked on..."Payback" was Super 35 as well. Looks great in dailies unless the grain is/was meant to be there for effect. If it was not then something went awry at the lab after the initial shooting happened.
Mark

Posted by Brett Rankin (Member # 31) on 06-30-2000, 01:27 AM:

Patriot looked like Super35 (You can tell it was shot spherical when focus changes in the same shot- with anamorphic, the horizontal seems to change focus differently than the vertical with spherical the focus changes equally in each direction). But I could have sworn that Green Mile was scope...

I saw this on a 65 foot (inadequately lit) screen, and I really didn't notice the grain. What I did notice was a LOT of lab errors. There were 4 lab splices, and right before 2 of them the picture turned dark purple. There was another little thing that I'm not sure about... 3 times, light, almost white bands appeared across the entire screen horizontally. They would roll like the V-hold on an old TV and then go away. I've never seen that before.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 06-30-2000, 03:08 AM:

Brett wrote...>>But I could have sworn that Green Mile was scope...<<<

Nope, Brad's right...The Green Mile was definately flat.

"Sometimes the Green Mile seems awfully long..." You got that right! My ass is still numb!

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 06-30-2000, 07:34 AM:

Brett:
The "dark purple" areas near the lab splices were probably from excessive exposure of the undeveloped film to the "safelight" used to illuminate the splicing area at the lab. There may have been a problem that caused the lab technician to take longer than normal to make the ultrasonic splice. The horizontal white bands may be due to some flicker in the printer light output --- contact printers move the printing negative and raw stock print film past a narrow aperture, and a flicker in the light output would cause a horizontal light band. Excessive safelight fogging and obvious printer problems are valid reasons to request a replacement reel.

Brad:
You are correct. Graininess is very dependent on the choice of camera format ("flat", Super-35, or anamorphic), film speed, and film exposure. In general, the larger the image area on the negative, the lower the graininess. A slower film like KODAK VISION 200T Color Negative Film (5274) is less grainy than a high speed film like KODAK VISION 800T Color Negative Film (5289). Underexposure tends to produce more graininess and more "smoky" shadows. Film type, exposure and even camera negative format can vary scene-to-scene in a feature, often depending upon the "look" desired for a particular scene. (Recall that for "Little Buddha", Storaro actually intercut scenes shot in 65 mm with scenes shot in 35 mm to achieve a sharper, grain-free look for the Buddha scenes).

------------------
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 Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 06-30-2000, 10:52 AM:

Film type, exposure and even camera negative format can vary scene-to-scene in a feature, often depending upon the "look" desired for a particular scene.

Yes... but... as I understand it, the D.P. will usually choose one stock for interiors and one stock for exteriors. And they generally like to shoot everything at the same (or close to the same) f-stop setting. The goal is always to intergrate the different stocks without letting the audience notice a difference. Film formats change often in films with visual effects and they always work hard to keep you from seeing a difference (which would then tell your mind that you're watching an effect and not something "real"). Exceptions would be films like Little Buddha or Brainstorm where they wanted two distinct looks in each film. But they still wanted consistency within each "look."

There appears to be evidence of sloppy lab work with The Patriot. But how many of those thousands of prints are bad? Were they in a mad rush to make the prints at the last minute? Hmmmm.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 06-30-2000, 02:46 PM:

Greg,
The DP's that I have worked with rarely shoot at the same f stop throught a feature, or even a commercial for that matter. Occasionally they shoot the same scene at a few different stops if its som,ething critical. This assures them that at least one scene would perfectly match in. What they do to get scenes to match up is to choose, sometimes with the director,a maximum highlight level and then stick to the same maximum highlight level throught a film. This will give the same impression of using the same f-stop. Thats part of the reason for the funny little dark glass they look through. When shooting a documentary using the same f-stop could be done as long as light conditions prevail. But that is rarely. You would also not have any control over depth of field if you shot that way.
Mark

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 06-30-2000, 04:17 PM:

Perhaps I've misunderstood how cinematographers work in general, but in publications like American Cinematographer I keep reading things like...

"The large softbox was used to get an ambient source that would produce enough light for Kimball to work at his preferred stop of T8/5.6." (From the article about Mission: Impossible 2.)

"I was shooting the night exteriors at about a T-2.8/3.2 on the C-series and at more of a T-5.6/8 for day exteriors." (From the article about Gone in 60 Seconds.)

"Thorin used Kodak's 500T Vision 5279 stock for night exteriors and most interiors, and Kodak's 250D Vision 5246 for daylight exteriors?" (From the article about Shaft.)

And that's all from just one issue! But now you guys have me extremely curious to read what they'll print about The Patriot.

Oh, wait! Here's an even better quote from the article about The Perfect Storm...

"Seale and Peterson also elected to shoot the film in the anamorphic format, which created its own set of considerations. The anamorphic zooms would be considerably slower than spherical zooms or primes, and there was also significant concern regarding focus because the entire film would be photographed primarily wide open at a T4.5. 'I opted to shoot anamorphic rather than Super 35 because I felt the quality improvement was a significant advantage for the film,' Seale asserts. 'It made things a bit more difficult, however, because I had to light everything up. I just said to the guys in preproduction, "Your stop is a T4.5. Lock it off!" The 8-perf VistaVision cameras from ILM were all T4.5 as well, so the whole film was planned for that stop.'"

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 06-30-2000, 05:33 PM:

American Cinematographer is a good publication that I would recommend quite highly.

Kodak publishes a nice catalog of their 16/35/65mm camera stocks with descriptions and technical information. This can be interesting reading for anyone who's familiar with conventional still photography and film stocks. I believe that it's called "Kodak Motion Picture and Television Imaging Camera Film Catalog" or something like that. Anyway, you can call up Kodak and get one. I'm sure that Fuji has something similar, though I have no experience with Fuji's MP camera stocks (I'm a fan of Kodak's 7293 as a great-looking all-purpose 16mm stock.)

For those who aren't familiar with it, I'll also mention the CML mailing list, on which many professional DPs participate. It seems like most of its contributors shoot TV commercials for a living, but there are a number of well-known feature DPs who are on the list as well.

Posted by Francis Casey (Member # 514) on 06-30-2000, 09:49 PM:

Hi All
Lastnight I watched Patriot on a screen in our 17plex .About 1/2 hour into the movie i noticed what i thought was a misframe .Upon checking with the projectionist he informed me that that they were getting a new reel because it had some sort of problem where the actual frame line wandered on part of the reel (not sure which reel).I have only ever seen this once before some years ago .Perhaps John could explain what could cause this to happen at the lab .
Also i noticed that during the last 40 minutes or so the image contained lots of very small wandering white specs and very thin wavey white lines .

Francis

Posted by David Kilderry (Member # 142) on 07-01-2000, 09:49 PM:

With stock available like Kodak EXR50D in 65mm there is never an excuse for grain in daylight unless the DOP wants it!

With all the advances in sound over the last 20 years, is it not time that the industry made some leaps forward in picture resolution? Vista Vision, TODD-AO, Technirama which all date from the 1950's had higher resolution pictures than what we see today.

No, I'm not saying go digital, I'm saying lets develope film, 35mm or 70mm, to the ultimate quality that can be achieved today in a cost effective manner.

David

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 07-01-2000, 10:52 PM:

There was a note in the can with "The Patriot," that said to move the framing up as far as it will go with out seeing frame lines. At first I thought it was to compensate for theaters that run 2:1, but after Francis' comment about the frame line wandering, I wonder.

Our print also has wavy lines in it. It looks a little like when you try to video-tape a movie off of the screen; wavy likes that move up.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-01-2000, 11:31 PM:

Hmmmm. And how would you know what a video-taped picture looks like???

Seriously, does anyone know what causes those lines? It looks like bad tv reception to me. (Where's John Pytlak? He'll know!)

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 07-02-2000, 09:11 AM:

Brad -- haven't we all tried to project 16mm film on the wall at home while videotaping it?

The line is a result of the mis-match between the film frame rate (24fps) and video frame rate (59.94 fields [1/2 frames] per second in the US). A projector with a five-bladed shutter would allow a perfect picture on the videotape.

Posted by Francis Casey (Member # 514) on 07-02-2000, 09:17 PM:

Hi again
Perhaps I should have been more specific in my previous post .When i said the frame line wandered , i should have stated that over the length of about 6 feet of film the frame line moved gradually from it's normal position by about 2 sprocket holes thus putting the image out of frame .
Also the wandering wavey white lines i refered to looked like very this white hairs that showed up for a fraction of a second every once and a while .
I hope this clears up what i ment to say.
Francis

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 07-02-2000, 10:59 PM:

Wavy, white lines that appear for a fraction of a second at the top or bottom of the screen?... Usually right when a shot changes?

If that's what you're seeing, then I think the projector is a hair bit out of frame. The way I understand it; with the advent of polyester film stock, they have to use an ultrasonic splicer to cut the movie (negative) together. The splicer leaves a white mark on the frame line, right at the joint. That MIGHT be what you are seeing.

The way I understand it, when polyester film became the "standard" the dimensions of the SCOPE aperture plate were supposed to be changed to cover up that mark. Of course, "old timers" who had the aperture dimensions memorized kept filing apertures out to the "old" sizes. Also, a lot of places kept their old plates (too "expensive" to replace), or in OUR case, didn't know about the change.

The result is that if you don't frame your scope movies perfectly you'll see that white "blip". The answer is simple: Get new apertures, or at least make sure all your people know that they must be careful when they frame the picture.

Posted by Francis Casey (Member # 514) on 07-03-2000, 06:05 AM:

Randy
The wavy white lines apeared at various random locations on the screen and were VERY thin , almost unoticable . I file all our aperatures to the new dimmensions .The film in this casey however may not have been properly framed because i did notice one white line from an ultronsonic splice go by .
Francis

Posted by Greg Pauley (Member # 503) on 07-03-2000, 09:00 AM:

I've seen these white lines at two of our theatres showing Patriot. These lines run from top to bottem and kinda look like hum bars on a TV monitor. This problem is in the print and have nothing to do with framing.

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 07-03-2000, 09:38 AM:

Francis wrote:
"... that over the length of about 6 feet of film the frame line moved gradually from it's normal position by about 2 sprocket holes thus putting the image out of frame."

Now, that's pretty weird- I've never heard of that before. I would think that would be a one-of-a-kind error.

John P. explained that the reason you sometimes see a white line "breaking" at the screen top or bottom is due to the way they duplicate prints at the lab. The lab does not bother rewinding the negative after making/copying a reel; they just make another copy by running the negative backwards through the printer. (Which must be why you sometimes get mixed "heads-up" or "tails-up" reels in the can.) The image is shifted slightly up or down (relative to the sprocket holes) because of film to sprocket "backlash."

But anyway, I think there must be some problem beyond these reasons to include a note in the can about framing. But, I don't know what it could be, as our print seems
OK framing-wise.

As to the wavey lines: Greg is right; it looks like TV hum bars. There's a scene where Mel gets his friends released from the British, and encounters the guy who killed his family. The "hum bars" are very noticable then.

Brad wrote:
"Hmmmm. And how would you know what a video-taped picture looks like???"

I was er... testing, yeah that's it; testing. But reel two came on, and my camera exploded! What are they putting in those CAP codes?!

Posted by Dave Cutler (Member # 515) on 07-03-2000, 03:58 PM:

John Walsh wrote:

"There was a note in the can with "The Patriot," that said to move the framing up as far as it will go with out seeing frame lines. At first I thought it was to compensate for theaters that run 2:1, but after Francis' comment about the frame line wandering, I wonder."

I noticed when one of my projectionists framed "Patriot" just a bit low that the boom mic wandered in and out of frame. Specifically in the scene where Gabriel signs up for the Continentals without permission. I fixed the framing after that scene so I don't know if it happened again.

------------------
Dave Cutler

"Do or do not, there is no try."

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

If the picture "wanders" out of frame during a reel, I suspect that the film wasn't seated properly on the printer sprocket, allowing it to shift relative to the printing negative. A replacement reel should be requested.

The horizontal "hum bars" are likely "printer bars", caused by slight variations in the printer speed as the film is moved past the printer aperture. In a continuous contact printer, the negative and print stock are brought into intimate contact and moved past an illuminated aperture. If the printer speed is not perfectly constant, there will be a slight change in exposure time, producing a horizontal density fluctuation on the print. "Printer Bars" are most likely to occur in underexposed scenes, where the printer vanes (printer lights or tape setting) are closed down, making the slit of light at the printer aperture very narrow.

The current "scope" projectable image area is 0.825 x 0.690 inches (per standard SMPTE 195). The image height of the original CinemaScope format was 0.715 inches, and a special narrow overlap splicer had to be used for splicing the negative to not show the splices on screen. But the narrow overlap (0.030 inches, 0.76 mm) CinemaScope splices were not as reliable as the standard splices. The standard splices (SMPTE Recommended Practice RP 111), have an overlap of 0.040 inches (1.02 mm), so the anamorphic image height was changed from the original 0.715 inches, to 0.700 inches, and finally to the present 0.690 inches, to minimize the visibility of the negative splices.

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 07-05-2000, 10:50 PM:

I went to another theater running "The Patriot." That print also has the "hum bars."

So, it's on the negative, or the same error happened at the exact same place on two different prints.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 07-06-2000, 06:33 AM:

John Walsh:

If the horizontal bars are indeed "printer bars", they may have happened at any stage that was printed on a continuous contact printer. As I noted, printer bars are more likely to occur in scenes that were underexposed, requiring the printer vanes to be closed down to produce a very narrow slit of light at the printer aperture.

Kodak's web site provides good information regarding motion picture printing technology:
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/h1/printing.shtml

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 07-07-2000, 02:37 AM:

A boom mike showing up in a scope film? Who'd have thought that could ever happen? (Especially by the director of the critically acclaimed "Godzilla".)

...Funny, they're not mentioning Godzilla in any of the advertising...