Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Fine Cinematography

This is topic Fine Cinematography - Bad printing.... 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=001957

Posted by Per Hauberg (Member # 529) on 02-21-2001, 04:20 PM:

I sure know, that cinematography and printing is not the same, but were Denmark alone having prints that definitely left no chance of an Oscar for best cinematography for "Tiger" and "Gladiator".
Both films very nasty to look at - also in theatres normally giving good presentation !
What do You say ?

Per

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 02-21-2001, 05:36 PM:

You can ask for a wet gate print if one was struck. These typically look far better than a standard high speed print. 35mm can look amazing but is screwed up all to often in the printing stages. Many a cinematographer must cringe when he sees his work projected from the typical low quality release print.
Mark @ GTS

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 02-21-2001, 06:54 PM:

Per Hauberg:

Please describe in more detail why you felt your prints "looked very nasty".

I saw normal release prints (not show prints) in the US that looked very good. One possibility is that your print of "Crouching Tiger" may have had bi-pack subtitles, which can soften the image, or if laser subtitles were used, the projector was focused for the subtitles and not the picture.

Although I felt "Gladiator" looked very good, you may be more sensitive to the sharpness loss in the digital effects than I was. Again, if you had a subtitled print, that can affect sharpness.

Is there a chance that your prints in Denmark are used prints that have been "rejuvenated"?

------------------
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 Cell: 716-781-4036 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

Posted by Per Hauberg (Member # 529) on 02-22-2001, 12:48 PM:

Howdy, Mr P.

> used prints <

"Tiger", -i believe was brand new prints - all 25 of them, but "Gladiator" as far as i know came here in one new for Copenhagen Imperial, and used American prints for the rest of the country.

For both titles, my impression was, that the picture was v e r y grainy.

Yes, all prints here are subtitled, which is a problem after going on laser insted of old-fashioned wax/clichee - You can choose picture or titles in focus - both only in theatres with very long throw (i've got 12 meters, booth not in centre. -Difficult enough with good prints)

But - running these two - even neclecting the subtitles, i felt, i was not giving my custumers, what they vere here for, and that really pisses me off. People often make jokes about small village cinemas, -special when coming from bigger places, so i think it's even more important for the small place to do its best, if we shall be able to stay in business...

/ p.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 02-22-2001, 01:35 PM:

Per: Graininess is usually a function of the cinematography. Using higher speed stocks or underexposure of the camera negative can increase the grain level. Likewise, using a smaller negative format (Super-35 was used for "Gladiator") can increase apparent graininess. The coatings used for "rejuvenation" can affect the way a print focuses.

As I noted, I personally felt the image quality of the US release prints of both films looked reasonably good, and perhaps the productions intended to have more grain texture to enhance their historical stories. Recall that "Saving Private Ryan" deliberately accentuated the grain and "grittiness", while desaturating the color, to bring a documentary "look" to the picture.

Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 02-22-2001, 11:07 PM:

"Gladiator" looked grainy to me, too. It seemed to me to be the cinematography; a purposefully coarse look like "The Matrix", which would also conveniently de-emphasize the coarse CGI work in "Gladiator".

The print I saw looked really good, it was the movie that looked really ugly.

Posted by Aaron Haney (Member # 747) on 02-23-2001, 09:22 AM:

Interesting how all five movies nominated for best cinematography this year are in the widescreen 2.39:1 "scope" format, but with the exception of "Maléna", they were all shot in Super-35. "Maléna" was shot in 35mm anamorphic Panavision according to the IMDb, which is sometimes wrong, but I'll trust it in this case -- I haven't seen the movie, so I can't say for sure.

I'm really not a big fan of the Super-35 format. It usually ends up looking grainy and less detailed compared to anamorphic 35mm. That's to be expected, due to the smaller amount of negative area that actually ends up on the screen (as John P. pointed out). It's also rare that shots in a Super-35 movie are composed so that they make good use of the widescreen area. They almost always end up looking like some made-for-TV movie that has been cropped for showing on a wide movie screen (which is in essence, what they are).

To my eyes, all of the Super-35 movies nominated this year looked extremely grainy -- with the exception of "O Brother, Where Art Thou", which, due to being run through a computer at 2K resolution, does not show very much grain -- apparently, even on a Super-35 negative, the film grains are smaller than the individual pixels of a 2K digital image ... we need 4K resolution! (Roger Deakins seems to agree; scroll down to the last couple of paragraphs of that "O Brother" link.)

It seems to me that Academy voters are unable to separate the quality of the movie itself from the quality of the cinematography. This is evidenced by the fact that the list of nominees for Best Cinematography and Best Picture always parallel each other almost exactly. I fail to undestand why that is, though. Academy voters seem to have no trouble separating the overall quality of a movie from the quality of a particular trait in the case of say, Best Visual Effects. Just think about how often a movie will be nominated and/or win in that category that is not even considered in any other category. So why can't they do the same thing for Best Cinematography? Regardless of the overall quality of the movie, if it is photographed well, it should get a nod.

Going by that criteria, I would have nominated "Finding Forrestor", "The Family Man", "Unbreakable", "Mission: Impossible 2", and if we just have to have a Super-35 movie in the list, "Proof of Life". (Note: I've got nothing against 1.85 movies, I just didn't see any last year that caught my eye.) Regardless of how good or bad those films were, they all had excellent cinematography and deserve to be recognized for it.

I hope that someday the Academy learns to be more objective with their nominations and make the Best Cinematography award more than just a rehash of the Best Picture award. Until that day, I will vehemently disagree with them.

Just my 2 cents.