Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: New TAP Division Suggested For Labs!!

This is topic New TAP Division Suggested For Labs!! 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=001270

Posted by Greg Pauley (Member # 503) on 08-08-2000, 02:40 PM:

Why in the world are the labs still using glue splices and why are they making the splices in the middle of the frame. I saw "Space Cowboy" opening night and there were 3 terrible looking lab splices that appeared on the screen. Yeah, the theatre should have taken out these splices, but does no one at the lab or studio care about quality? If a theatre would have blundered these splices, the people at TAP would have been on the phone to the manager. I have a suggestion, start a new division of TAP and call it LAP "Laboratory Alignment Program." If they find a problem with the print (shouldn't take long for this to happen) they would call the manager of the lab or call the head of the studio and explain that they should repair the problem ASAP. They might suggest having someone from the exhibitor side of the industry to consult on the proper splicing method and to volunteer to stay late and watch the film prior to shipping. Is it just me or has everyone else had a lot of problems with bad prints over the last year? Just had to order a new 4th reel of "Coyote Ugly" because the picture and sound disappeared for about 10 sec at the end of the reel. I can't remember which preview it was, but it was attached to Space Cowboy and had those "Hum Bar" lines rolling down top to bottom just like the ones that appear in the Patriot. When you see the same problem on two different prints, it tells you something is not right with the labs. Does anybody at the labs take a random look at the prints or are they just too rushed to get them out? I don't normally "bitch" on this forum, but just started my vacation and already received 2 emails and 1 phone call from the office. I'm heading to Hartford CT, any must see theatres in that area?

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 08-08-2000, 02:58 PM:

AFAIK, the Theatre Alignment Program DOES work closely with labs to check outgoing print quality on features that contract for TAP, but they can't look and listen "real time" to every one of the tens of thousands of reels that make up a major feature release. Random bad reels will happen, and the labs quickly replace them. Problems that affect all the prints (e.g., an unsteady or scratched printing negative, a sound sync problem among tracks) are very critical, and need to be reported as soon as they are found.

Ultrasonic lab splices are unfortunately an economic "fact of life". Splices that are unreliable, discolored, or not on the frameline should be properly remade during make-up. Having the labs or a third party remaking splices would drive up print costs significantly, and add an extra handling stage. Inspection projection itself can sometimes cause damage.

BTW, I've heard that return rates for defective reels are well under 1% (one percent) at most labs. Small comfort when you find a problem reel late Thursday night, before a busy weekend.

------------------
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 Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-08-2000, 04:49 PM:

Since we're dredging up this topic again, I must chime in and state the obvious again...this is TES's fault for not allowing the prints to be received at the theaters on Wednesdays!!! Sure the splices are an economic necessity, but with all of the print problems out there in the field, we could solve virtually ALL of them if TES would just send the prints out 2 days prior. That would give plenty of time to replace the reels.

Oh wait, that would require actual thought and concern. Never mind.

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 08-08-2000, 07:22 PM:

I thought that was the idea behind TAP. They "followed" the techinal aspects of the film from, say, the finished negative, printing and to the theaters.

I do think lab spliced are not a TAP - controlled item. As JP said, we'll just have to learn to live with them.

I know of a lot of companies (making all kinds of products) that would be damn happy if their product only had a 1% fall-out rate.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 08-09-2000, 05:43 AM:

Brad:

I agree that many minor print problems could be better addressed by projectionists if they received prints in time to do a thorough inspection, repair lab splices, etc. And if a reel was defective, get a replacement in plenty of time for the opening.

Both the SMPTE P3 Projection Technology Committee and the Inter-Society Committee for the Enhancement of Theatrical Presentation will be meeting at ShowEast in Orlando this October. I will bring up the advantages of shipping the prints so they arrive at theatres a few days (not hours) in advance of the first show, and see if anything can be done, especially by the Inter-Society, which is supported by NATO and the Distributors.

There may be issues that we are not aware of that mandate "just in time" shipping by the exchanges, including piracy control, air freight schedules, union work agreements, etc. But I think it's worth trying.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 08-09-2000, 07:18 AM:

I said: "BTW, I've heard that return rates for defective reels are well under 1% (one percent) at most labs."

Just as a "reality check", what percentage of reels have Film-Tech participants required immediate replacements for, due to lab or stock problems? Look over your print logs for the last few months, and calculate how many NEW reels you've received, and how many of them needed to be immediately replaced. Is it indeed less than 1 in 100?

Please do NOT include damage from previous showings (used prints), or minor problems like having to remake lab splices. We're only counting NEW reels that have to be replaced, which is what the labs and distributors keep track of.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 08-09-2000, 08:43 AM:

John,
If you look at a film like the "Perfect Storm" and how bad it looked one might actually be inclined think that the return rate SHOULD be closer to 100%

.
The key to better lab quality is not a TAP sort of thing but a bit slower lab output and production rate. Also, since we now all live in an age of "the bottom line", that always takes precedence over any quality at all........be it film or digital.
Mark

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 08-09-2000, 09:16 AM:

Mark:

A quick search of all the postings on this site did not find any major print problems being reported for "Perfect Storm", so your report is the first. What specific issues do you attribute to the lab? Many times, with an effects-laden picture (especially CGI), it's difficult to identify the source of any image quality problem, since there are so many elements and so many labs/effects houses involved.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 08-09-2000, 11:04 AM:

John,
Read Scott Norwoods DLP review of the Perfect Storm. In there he comments on how the actual release prints look overall poor, and are not color timed very well and that this made them look even worse in Digital. This would certainly constitute a 100% reject rate. The prints here in SLC look pretty awful overall. With the exception of the few wet gates that I assume were made for the big Hollywood and New York theaters this may bring it down to 99% assuming those actually looked good.
Mark

Posted by Dave Cutler (Member # 515) on 08-09-2000, 11:09 AM:

On average I receive 4 prints each week. Let's say that an average movie is 5 reels. I order on average 2 reels per week. That's 2 reels in every 20, 1 in 10. Not a very good ratio. Last week (Opening of Space Cowboys, Hollow Man and Coyote Ugly) I had 6 prints totaling 38 reels and I had to order 5 new ones.

I think that the return rates are so low because many theatres don't even screen prints. Others just don't care enough to get replacements. Those of us who do request replacements are making up the percentage for the entire country, which is why it is so low.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 08-09-2000, 11:22 AM:

Dave,
I absolutely agree with you that most do not screen the prints and in reality most do not care......including the labs. It is after all, just the bottom line that matters.
Mark

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 08-09-2000, 12:52 PM:

Mark:

Here is what Scott Norwood said regarding "Perfect Storm":

"the garden-variety 35mm release print that I saw of this film was not very good.
The film was shot in super-35, and the release prints were grainy and had timing problems." He goes on to say that the color consistency and tone scale in the DLP presentation was even worse.

First, let me clarify that cinematographer John Seale "opted to shoot anamorphic rather than Super 35 because (he) felt the quality improvement was a significant advantage for this film." (American Cinematographer, July 2000, page 58). Filmed effects were shot on 8-perf VistaVision. Lucasfilm's Industrial Light and Magic(ILM)did most of the effects and CGI. So the film has good credentials.

As you know, the scene-to-scene timing is approved at the answer print stage, so the "timing problems" reflected the artistic decision of the timer, cinematographer and director. We may argue with the color decisions, but it was theirs' to make. A release print lab can be held responsible for reel-to-reel color variations, but not the scene-to-scene color timing from an approved answer print.

Scott's comment about "grainy" may be explained by the American Cinematographer article: "To help a bit with emulsion speed, Seale force-processed the SFX 200 one stop, rating it 320 ISO." Generally, this enhances the grain structure of the film. Again, this was an artistic decision, and one driven by the need to light huge sets to get the desired T4.5 lens opening.

So, in this case, the "look" of the film was likely what was approved, and is not a "lab problem".

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 08-09-2000, 01:17 PM:

Dave Cutler said: "Last week (Opening of Space Cowboys, Hollow Man and Coyote Ugly) I had 6 prints totaling 38 reels and I had to order 5 new ones."

What were the specific lab problems that caused you to request 5 replacement reels? At least two labs are involved with those three pictures.

Posted by Dave Cutler (Member # 515) on 08-09-2000, 01:27 PM:

John,

Each print of 'Space Cowboys' had one reel that had black splotching on the soundtrack side of the print.

One of the prints of 'Hollow Man' had medium sizeds white dots running down the right side of the screen for 3 reels. Have never seen this before.

Had the same white spots with a print of 'Coyote Ugly' but since it only lasted about 5 seconds I decided not to replace it. I probably should have I know but I didn't.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 08-09-2000, 01:42 PM:

John,
I am aware of the grainy thing. It can come through in anamorphic or Super 35 for that matter and is easily controled for the desired effect. This effect can also be done in later stages if desired.
I doubt that the DP, and Director would have approved the way the average release print of this film looked. I've been through many color timming sessions with quite a number of DP's while on location dailies. Answer prints ALWAYS look far better than the run of the mill relesae print. While I'm certain they made accurate timming desisions on an answer print of Secret Storm the end result, through the murk of the average release print was pretty shotty even if it was an artistic desision, which I doubt.
John, Please do not be offended by my constant ranting about poor lab quality, but unfortunately its way too common these days.Lets not ignore the average poor quality of prints that most labs kick out these days. It would be in everyone's interest if Kodak undertook to develop new printing/processing technology that would allow the the average lab to generate prints at high speed and maintain quality. I can't believe that a computer could not be built that could look at the finished prints as they are wound on to shipping cores. This could in reality catch a large portion of bad product that gets out. I afraid that you'd be very surprised at how many defective rolls are sent out to theaters. Much moer than 1%. If we can go to the moon and back it shouldn't be too difficult to make decent prints to show on theater screens. Lets not let the greed of the lab owners prevail here. If we do then Digital is just around the corner for all of us.
Mark

Posted by Dave Cutler (Member # 515) on 08-09-2000, 02:06 PM:

Yes, but I have heard that we can't go to the moon and back anymore. Hard to believe, but I have heard that we have 'forgotten' how to do it.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 08-09-2000, 02:32 PM:

Mark: Kodak IS already partnering with labs on programs to improve the technology of printing and processing films.

One of them (cyan dye soundtracks) will completely solve the "black splotching on the soundtrack side of the print" that Dave had on his prints of "Space Cowboys". Another has significantly reduced the level of "white dirt" on prints. One is evaluating the spectral purity of additive printers to improve color and contrast. Another development program is aimed at improving the sharpness and steadiness of prints.

Three of the five reels Dave returned had a problem he has not seen before, so it may be an unusual occurrence. Hopefully the lab will share samples of the problem with Kodak so we can analyze the "medium sized white dots running down the right side of the screen". Kodak's assistance in analyzing and solving problems is always available to our lab customers.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-09-2000, 02:54 PM:

I'd say getting a used screener print is THE biggest problem right now. If the depots would make absolute certain that any screener print went BACK to the theater that originally played it, this would no longer be a problem.

Lab defects are all over the place. I believe the biggest problem with this situation is the major pain it is to order a replacement reel. Most people feel it is simply not worth the trouble. I mean really, it is worth changing out that reel of Thomas and the Magic Railroad because the SRD track wanders in and out of the sprocket holes? Nope. Just play it in another format. It'll only be here 2 weeks anyway.

The ratio is indeed far higher than 1%, it's the depots that are making it seem like it is not, as well as having to go on screen the next day without a perfect print in the first place.

Another reason many people don't bother is indeed the lack of Thursday night screenings. By the time a problem is noticed, the studios will say "you caused that". Also, it is a major pain to have to go in and change out reels between shows. It wouldn't be near as big of a deal if the projectionist had all Thursday evening to change out a reel.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 08-09-2000, 04:13 PM:

John,
I'm glad to hear that Kodak is doing all this stuff. But when will we start to see some results? Time IS running out for us as far as film goes. If quality can be put back to the point that a print looks like it was printed at 3 to 400 fpm then you've made great headway. Right now we're all waiting.
The cyan track issue may only create a whole new batch or problems for us all.... Thats not what we really need these days.
Mark

Posted by Greg Pauley (Member # 503) on 08-10-2000, 10:32 AM:

It’s just like me to stir up some trouble and then leave. I’ve been on the road traveling for the last couple of days and just now got online. I agree with some of the other comments above, not every theatre is going to report every problem with every print. The problem with Coyote Ugly that I noted is probably still playing on a screen somewhere in America and the staff is telling the customers “It’s a problem with the print, not ours.” I know that the labs are not perfect just like the rest of us, but I don’t buy the 1% number. Having been in the business for 26 years I have seen times when it was really rare to receive a bad print. You would watch the movie on Thursday night for operator mistakes and for that rare print problem, now you watch for that rare operator problem and no sound on the print, discolor of the print or in the case of Coyote Ugly, disappearing picture and sound. Either my company is the unlucky one receiving the 1% or there are more bad prints coming out of the labs. I don’t think you can search this forum for the number of print problems, not all of us have the time or choose to list every single print problem on this forum. I’m currently driving my Ford Explorer with the Firestone Wilderness tires. When I left two days ago Firestone issued a press release that the problem with the tires were the lack of air pressure by the customer not the tires. Today, Firestone announced a recall of over 6 million of these tires because they have caused over 300 accidents and 50 deaths. Not everything that a big company releases is totally true.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 08-10-2000, 08:56 PM:

There are two major labs in Canada Deluxe and AstralTech and both have a very low number of print rejects.
I know Deluxe canada has well under the 1% amount

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-10-2000, 09:14 PM:

Well, if anyone would care to participate, I could start up a dedicated forum just for everyone to post the title of their movie and which reels had damage, whether they were reported or not.

Anyone, anyone? Bueller, Fry?

Posted by Greg Pauley (Member # 503) on 08-10-2000, 10:14 PM:

I would be willing to participate, but I don't know it would really prove anything or change anything. It would give everyone a list of problems to check on new prints, just in case someone had to go to the restroom during the screening and missed a problem or for any theatre that doesn't screen the prints prior to showing.

Posted by John Scott (Member # 520) on 08-10-2000, 10:55 PM:

John,

Here are our replacemnts for the summer... 2 reels each in both of our prints of MI2 had to be replaced due to black scratches throughout the print and major color problems (4 reels total)

2 reels of one of our prints of Big Mamma's House had to be replaced because they were in FRENCH!

1 reel of Fantasia 2000 had to be replaced due to white scratches throught the final reel.

3 reels of 1 print of patriot had to be replaced due to soundtrack problems (snaping and cracking and loss of sound sporaticly through the reels).

2 reels of 1 screen of Klumps had to be replaced due to black and white scratches and soundtrack cracking.

2 reels of Space Cowboys due to black splotches randomly appearing on the print.

So far this summer that makes 14 reels we had to return for our 16-plex.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 08-11-2000, 07:11 AM:

Brad:

The easiest way to keep track of serious problems would be to report them on the "Feature Info & Trailer Attachment" Forum. For example, if everyone was having a sound sync problem with reel 4 of a particular feature film, it would quickly help the lab track and solve the problem. Keeping the information organized by feature title in one place would be useful for all.

My "less than 1%" return figure comes from my contacts in Hollywood. Good to see agreement with what Gordon hears in Canada.

John Scott: You returned 14 defective reels in a period of about three months. Assuming your 16-plex changes out about 1/3 of the prints weekly, you probably received about 30 new reels per week, or a total of 360 reels this summer. So you are returning less than 4 percent of your reels. As mentioned previously in this thread, some theatres may be more tolerant of defects like minor scratches or occasional sound pops, so that may be the reason for the difference in reported returns.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-11-2000, 09:03 AM:

Everyone like John's idea? I don't see the need for posting your theater and print number, but a simple "R4 had light base scratches" description would probably do the trick. Again, I think if this were to be implemented for survey purposes that everyone would need to post their problems whether they got a new reel or not.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 08-11-2000, 09:44 AM:

Brad: Print number and reel number WOULD be very useful for the labs to track and solve a problem. Many times, a film stock, printer or processing problem will be isolated to a small batch of reels done during a particular work shift or on a particular piece of equipment.

Posted by Dave Cutler (Member # 515) on 08-11-2000, 04:10 PM:

Sounds like a good idea to me. I agree with John P to put it in the "Feature Info & Trailer Attachment" Forum. Print number, Reel number and problem would be the appropriate information. Maybe a note on if you decided to replace it or not would be nice too.

Posted by Ted Costas (Member # 473) on 08-11-2000, 05:00 PM:

Seventeen years... That's how long TAP has been in the Lab Quality Assurance business. We don't work on every title, so I can't say we've changed the world, but I can tell you we at TAP do make a difference on the projects we work on. Here are some factors I can tell you all without breaching any confidentiality agreements:

Over the past ten years, TAP has rejected between 7% and 10% of the reels we've reviewed. On a typical project, we review every 50th reel manufactured, that is our minimum sampling ratio, we do review more reels if we find a problem and need to isolate a defect. We have caught many problems over the years... in each case, we immediately contact the lab, have the defect investigated and repaired, and confirm that the defect was actually fixed. All this is reported back to the distributor that hired us for the project. I will say that Coyote Ugly was our last Disney title we worked on, and although we don't see every reel manufactured, when we catch a problem that is repeated, and we did a few times, we stop the presses and get it fixed. The Reel 4 that was mentioned that had a "picture and sound dropout", well, after looking at our report, this was most likely an isolated problem, hopefully on a single reel, because it never turned up in our every 50th reel review statistics. Then again, I have been aware for some time that the labs pre-screen the reels they give us to review... I used to be upset with this, because it skews the statistics in the labs favor. Yet, for the clients' sake, it works out great. When TAP is hired to review a title, the Distributor gets double the Quality Assurance, first the lab looks at the reels (something that doesn't always happen when TAP is not looking over their shoulder) and they catch the glaring problems, then we look at it and catch the problems the lab misses. And even with the lab pre-screening our reels, we still reject 7% to 10% of them.

Not that I want to open up any cans of worms, but of all the titles mentioned in this topic thus far, Coyote Ugly was the only one we at TAP worked on. Warner Bros. has not utilized TAP Lab Services in some time... Sony uses us here and there on their high profile projects... Disney and DreamWorks use us on almost all of their titles. Fox chooses how extensively to use us on each title, but they do use us on virtually every title. TAP did not work on The Perfect Storm, The Patriot, or Space Cowboys, yet we did work on Coyote Ugly, The Kid, X-Men, Gladiator, and Chicken Run. Before I start getting beaten up here, because we cannot guarentee that each and every print will be flawless, let me say that on all those titles, we assisted the lab in putting out a better product. We caught many defects and had them corrected with a very limited amout of prints being affected. Yes, bad reels do slip by us here and there, but the overall difference we make is significant... and our clients that use us appreciate that difference.

John P: Did you get the flowers I sent? (Ha, Ha)

I'd be happy to answer questions on this topic, but try not to beat me up too bad, o'kay? I'm on your side.

THXfully Yours,

Ted Costas
Manager, THX Theatre Alignment Program

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-11-2000, 11:09 PM:

John, I had recommended not making print numbers a mandatory thing purely for those people who would be afraid of getting into some form of trouble with the higher-ups. I agree it would be beneficial, but I think you would see more defective reels listed if print numbers were optional information.

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 08-12-2000, 09:36 AM:

Brad makes a good point (about not giving print numbers) but, on the other hand, it is probably required to track down a problem. And (like posting with your real name) it keeps 'problem reporting' honest. I notice that when people get frustated by problems, they will over exaggerate.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 08-14-2000, 08:03 AM:

Ted Costas said: "John P: Did you get the flowers I sent? (Ha, Ha)"

No, I did not receive the flowers. Frankly, I was hoping for a load of THX merchandise. Do I get to choose anything from your website?: http://www.thx.com/merchandise/index.html

Kodak, THX and the labs work together to further improve the quality of release prints. "Shit Happens" occasionally, but we all do care about quality, and continually try to improve it.