Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Pearl Harbor Dye Transfer

This is topic Pearl Harbor Dye Transfer 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=002319

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 05-25-2001, 12:14 PM:

How widespread are the dye transfer prints of PEARL HARBOR?

BTW, on the imdb, someone has listed (wrongly)in PEARL HARBOR trivia that the film was "Filmed in "3-strip Technicolor," the same color process used for Wizard of Oz, The (1939) and _Gone with the Wind (1939)".

It is curious that someone has listed both trivia and goofs before the film has even opened.

Mark L.

------------------
"As a moral to young men who come down to the city, don't go round breaking people's tambourines."

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 05-25-2001, 12:35 PM:

I think the UA Colorado Center 9 has a print, as they are advertising an "enhanced 35mm print".

They are the only ones in Colorado advertising this so they are probably the only ones who have a print. They don't use Filmguard as far as I know.

Posted by Paul Konen (Member # 41) on 05-25-2001, 02:43 PM:

I have 4 of these prints. They were referred to us as "Premium Prints" and to, of course, treat them very carefully.

Paul.

Posted by Christopher Seo (Member # 7) on 05-25-2001, 02:48 PM:

So, what are the optical and digital soundtracks on these prints? Silver or dye? I had heard that the optical tracks would be incompatible with tungsten readers in some strange sort of departure from Technicolor's all-silver tracks for dye transfer.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-25-2001, 02:56 PM:

If the dye transfer prints do not have silver image tracks, that would be news!!! Normal procedure is to print the tracks on the B&W receiver stock, process it to get the silver image tracks, then transfer the image dyes for the picture. Dye only tracks would imply that the tracks were printed via dye transfer.

------------------
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 Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-25-2001, 07:25 PM:

Clarification to everyone:

The prints listed as "Premier" are NOT IB dye transfer prints. I haven't had the chance to look at a regular print, but I think the only difference is another generation in the negative and the use of Kodak 2383 stock, as opposed to Kodak Vision Premiere 2393 stock. Perhaps John Pytlak can clarify that aspect a bit more.

There were only a few handful of IB dye transfer prints made.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-25-2001, 08:20 PM:

I have NOT heard specifics for "Pearl Harbor", but it is not unusual for some distributors to have a mix of prints on both Kodak VISION Color Print Film 2383 and Kodak VISION Premier Color Print Film 2393. The sure way to tell is by the magenta-colored edgeprint identification. For either film, the analog soundtrack would be either dark blue (cyan + magenta) or "high magenta" (magenta dye) with the dark gray silver soundtrack application over it.

AFAIK, any dye transfer print would have only dark gray silver for all four (quad) tracks, with no dye (no coloration in the track area).

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 05-25-2001, 08:48 PM:

Is anyone else seeing the words "enhanced" or "specially enhanced" in advertising? The local Imax has dropped large format for awhile and is showing Pearl Harbor. This special note is in the display ad, not the theatre listing: "SPECIALLY ENHANCED 35MM PRESENTATION ON A GIANT IMAX SCREEN". I'll try and find out exactly what they mean by that.

Mark Lensenmayer

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-25-2001, 10:13 PM:

I watched a standard print this afternoon in Idaho and it looked dam good. VERY reminiscent of dye transfer but it was not an I.B. print. Great contrast and excellent blacks that were not off color. Now if only the image could be printed steady they'd have something.......
Mark @ GTS

Posted by Sean M. Grimes (Member # 445) on 05-26-2001, 01:46 AM:

Ok OK one of the three prints that I watched (grrr...) was great. The other two had very much bloopy(?) like splotches in a few parts. Being that my home office is closed until tuesday, and the prints are still very much playable (as a matter of fact I would doubt that any one not trained to notice them would ever do so) I will have to wait until tuesday. Dont get me wrong - these prints had great color and not a single problem what so ever except for a few damn bloopy splotches. I just hope that the home office will actually allow me to get two new reels - they did not fall in the same reel in comparision to either of the prints in question. But a slight irk? You bet. I actually saw better care into Freddy Got Fingered than the "Summer Blockbuster".

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 05-26-2001, 01:48 AM:

Marky Mark,

I have seen the exact same advertising. In fact, this is also on an "IMAX" screen as well. Not a HUGE screen per se, but they have played actual IMAX on this screen. I hope that's not all they mean by "Specially Enhanced 35mm". If they don't have a dye transfer print, then this advertising is just bullshit. Projecting 35mm on an IMAX sized screen does not enhance it. Let us know what you find out.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-26-2001, 07:18 AM:

Sean said: "The other two had very much bloopy(?) like splotches in a few parts."

If the splotches tend to be along the left side of the image, they are likely accidental spill-over from the viscous soundtrack developer that forms the silver in the analog soundtrack. You should request replacement reels.

One of the advantages of converting to cyan dye analog soundtracks (requiring red LED readers) is the elimination of the need to develop the silver in the analog soundtrack area.

Prints with cyan dye tracks have already been exhibited successfully. The recent Miramax release "Get Over It" paves way for wider-scale use of cyan dye tracks:
http://www.dolby.com/press/wb.pr.0105.Cyan.html

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 05-26-2001, 10:22 AM:

Joey, Joey, Joe,

NYT also has a special ad for PEARL HARBOR on the Sony/Loew's IMAX screen. It also says SPECIALLY ENHANCED. I'll post when I get a clarification on this.

Mark L.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 05-26-2001, 03:25 PM:

I can say that the print here at the Uptown in DC is definately NOT a IB or dye transfer print. It is pretty though. Oh, and John, it has conventional analog redevelopment...no high-magenta here.

Has anyone A/Bed high-magenta to conventional? I have found high-mageneta to sound lousy on just about any reader...very harsh high-ends.

STeve

------------------
"Old projectionists never die, they just changeover!"

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-26-2001, 04:39 PM:

John P or someone correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't Technicolor's new IB dye transfer process basically cost the same as printing conventional prints? As I understand, the only problem is getting the finished negative early enough for the single printer to be able to crank out the copies.

All that work by the Technicolor lab guys to make this a reality again and no one is using it!!!

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 05-26-2001, 05:15 PM:

Quite frankly, I would bet that Technicolor has lost at least some interest in dye-transfer and is concentrating on their e-projector and distribution system. If, generally, people will accept e-projector quality, (which is not quite as good as regular 35mm prints) why bother with imbibtion (sp?) printing? Because Technicolor doesn’t have a totally setup production line for dye-transfer, it is probably still more expensive. Besides, the studios/distributors would rather be able to send the final reels (for printing) at the last minute.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 05-26-2001, 06:57 PM:

Isn't the film-scanning process for DLP projection a time-consuming one, however?

In any case, it seems that dye-transfer printing and DLP/whatever

are really two totally different products aimed at two totally different ends of the market. Dye transfer seems like a sort of "high end" premium product intended to show off the best picture quality possible with 35mm film (and sound quality too, in the case of old prints...the new IB prints that I have seen have had substandard sound quality), while DLP seems to be driven more by cost and the "lowest common denominator" approach.

If John W. is correct (and he probably is), then this change in thinking is pretty sad, and maybe not the best business decision, either. Dye-transfer is something that can be sold _now_ and can make money _now_, while DLP/etc.

is something that might or might not happen soon and seems like much more of a financial gamble, particularly since any success with DLP would probably have some negative implications to other aspects of Technicolor's business (film printing and distribution) which would offset any competitive advantage to be obtained with DLP.

There's no doubt in my mind that digital projection will become commonplace at some point, and if I were a film lab I would definitely be doing research and development toward that end, but I think that they're being a bit naive if Technicolor thinks that this will happen so quickly that there is no point in trying to use their existing proprietary technology for profit over the next few years. Especially considering that digital projection technology is evolving so rapidly, the poor financial health of the industry, the fact that there is currently _no_ distribution model for "digital cinema" nor is there likely to be one for some time, and the fact that even a theatre with lots of money and a fetish for all things "digital" can't even purchase a DLP setup outright at this point.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-26-2001, 08:53 PM:

Sorry, I don't know the pricing of dye transfer prints relative to normal release prints. I suspect it must come down somewhat with more prints, since the matrices are a fixed added cost whether you make one print or a few hundred.

Posted by Larry Myers (Member # 738) on 05-26-2001, 09:02 PM:

My my, I just played a scope trailer of Pearl Harbor tonight on my home theater system. Does it look good. Better then anything so far.

I would say image quality looks twice as good then anything I have played to date.

I am using a low time Devry XD with a Super Cinelux lens on a 5x12 screen.

Larry

Posted by Michael Barry (Member # 237) on 05-26-2001, 10:49 PM:

Larry: I have also noticed that for some reason, Bruckheimer's films appear much sharper than the majority of other films, especially those by Michael Bay. Perhaps more care is taken in post to ensure this; I think it may have to do with the filtration and kind of lighting that's used (Bruckheimer films take on a 'bronzed' and/or 'high-tech' look - certainly lots of 'hot' colors and very gel/color filter intensive) and the talents of DP John Schwartzman, ASC are undeniable - he is surely a technical wizard.

Has anyone else noticed this and if so, could they shed some more light on it? (bad cinematography pun not intended).

Posted by Josh Jones (Member # 447) on 05-27-2001, 12:32 AM:

I saw This film tonight. all I can say is if you havent already seen this film GET OFF YOUR ASS AND SEE IT. aside from a few interpositive scratches, a lab splice, and watching half out of focus, This is the best movie I have seen in a while. nice tight grain and seemless sound mixing. I havent been glued to the screen like that since "Twister".

Josh

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 05-27-2001, 12:59 AM:

You liked Twister? I thought the first trailer was good. One of the first Dolby Digital trailers. When it switched out of mono (what we ran trailers in at the time) and into SRD and the narrator's voice came on, people were amazed. Yes, just at the quality of the voice! The sound in the rest of the trailer was great, too. Too bad the movie wasn't.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-27-2001, 06:18 AM:

Kodak VISION Premier Color Print Film 2393 has more silver and coupler, giving an extended "upper scale" that enhances the richness of the shadows and brightens the saturated colors:
Technical Data for 2393
Technical Data for 2383

Posted by Larry Myers (Member # 738) on 05-27-2001, 09:57 AM:

I have found that many trailers are far better then the movie. They seem to contain the best scenes. Would the Pearl Harbor trailer be printed on the Vision stock?

I also notice that the trailers will vary greatly in image quality. This is far more noticable using the Schneider Super Cinelux lens. With this lens, the Pearl Harbor trailer is grainless. About the same as you would expect on 70mm. It reminds me of the grain quality of reissued Lawrence of Arabia.

Some of my trailers, the grain is very noticable as if it was shot on 16mm. If I go back to the Kollmorgen lens, the grain is not as noticable. Something to be said for a lower quality lens.

From what I see, there are so many inputs to the final presentation image quality that the goal of "Film Done Right" may only exist in one out of 10 films. Even at that, it may exist in as little as 1 out of 5 theaters.

Larry

Posted by Sean Weitzel (Member # 244) on 05-27-2001, 01:32 PM:

Jeff Joseph posted this on his 35mmforum.com:

=-=-=-=-=-=-
Technicolor will only confirm 6 prints at this point (although a few more may have been struck). 3 are in New York; sorry, don't know the theaters. 3 are in Los Angeles:
General Cinema Beverly Connection; don't know which theater
Cineplex Odeon Century City; Theatre number one
AMC Santa Monica; don't know which theater

If you have any other info, please email me at: sabucat@sabucat.com

Thanks,

Jeff Joseph
SabuCat Productions http://www.sabucat.com

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 05-27-2001, 05:00 PM:

The Pearl Harbor trailer is on 2383. I'm looking at the final version right now, but I assume that all 3 (?) versions were done on the same stock...

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-27-2001, 09:43 PM:

As with the feature, the distributor chooses which stock to use for the trailers. Best way to tell whether it is 2383 or 2393 is to look at the magenta-colored edge ID that Kodak prints on every roll.

Posted by Edwin Graf Diemer (Member # 545) on 05-28-2001, 09:12 PM:

I caught "Pearl" at the IMAX theater in the UA King Of Prussia Stadium 16 [PA] complex on Saturday. I wonder if they are dropping IMAX-there used to be a IMAX logo by the inside doors for that theater, but I noticed it was gone. The ads mentioned "Specially Enhanced 35mm Presentation---On The Giant 5-Story Screen". Whatever they were using, it looked great-the image was shown on the center of the screen, and not wider than it could be pushed without losing focus. Very tight grain as well!

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 05-28-2001, 09:17 PM:

Who owns the theatre?
most of the commercial IMAX theatres have some very strict rules re 35mm presentations

Posted by Christopher Seo (Member # 7) on 05-29-2001, 12:03 AM:

This film was shot in anamorphic (as opposed to Super 35) and I think this accounts for some of the quality difference.

The regular run print I made up was on 2383. The stunning EKs were on 2393, but the regular prints don't seem too shabby either.

Posted by Edwin Graf Diemer (Member # 545) on 05-29-2001, 08:24 PM:

Its a United Artists Theater. The Imax screen is on the second floor, although you can get there from the rear when crowds are light. (One ticket taker can handle the works this way.) The two largest screens are 62 feet when running 'Scope, and all is constantly well-run. I make a point of visiting when I'm in the area!

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 05-29-2001, 09:36 PM:

Only 62 feet? I guess I was spoiled by the UA Galaxy's 80 feet. And it's not an IMAX.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-31-2001, 03:44 PM:

I've been watching my INTERNET sources, and listening to the grapevine, and here's the unofficial list of dye transfer prints of "Pearl Harbor":

Los Angeles Area:

General Cinema Beverly Connection
Cineplex Odeon Century City
AMC Santa Monica
AMC 14 Burbank (starting 6/1/2001)
Cineplex Odeon Universal City Walk (6/1/2001)
Edwards Spectrum Irvine (6/1/2001)
General Cinema Sherman Oaks (6/1/2001)

San Francisco:

Sony Metreon

New York City:

AMC Empire 25
Loews Lincoln Square
Union Square

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-31-2001, 03:57 PM:

Hmmmm, that's 11 prints. Supposedly there were only 6 prints struck in IB dye transfer. I wonder if they really are dye transfer, or if the projectionists just saw the green "premiere print" label on the cans and think they have something special.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-31-2001, 04:09 PM:

Well, now that we have a list of theatres, perhaps some of the Film-Tech people who have contacts at the theatres can verify? Tal Marks? Jonathan Haglund? Kurt Shawn Macfarlane? Tim Reed?

Posted by Larry Davis (Member # 609) on 05-31-2001, 06:51 PM:

John,
I spoke with the projectionist at Union Square. He told me they have a dye transfer print, but they are using it as a backup. The reason is that if the digital readers fail, it's difficult to read the analog tracks with white light on dye transfer prints. Those are his words and reasoning. Whether or not his reasoning is correct, he was a nice guy and very polite.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-31-2001, 08:10 PM:

Larry: Thanks for verifying that Union Square has a dye transfer print. Dye transfer has a genuine silver analog track, so I'm surprised that he feels the sound is difficult to read with white light. Shame that the print is not being shown, since there are so few in circulation.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-31-2001, 09:53 PM:

Ugh! Larry, tell Union Square to send that print to me!!!

Posted by Larry Davis (Member # 609) on 05-31-2001, 10:43 PM:

John,
I was suprised and disappointed by what the projectionist said. It seems like such a waste. I wish there was better coordination with theaters. These prints should be distributed with some thought.

Brad,
But then what would they use as a backup print?

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-31-2001, 11:30 PM:

Personally, I've always felt that a "backup" print should only be necessary in crappy theaters. Anyone who knows what they are doing does NOT need a backup print.

Posted by Tal Marks (Member # 175) on 06-01-2001, 11:28 PM:

Hi guys. Here at Loew's Lincoln Square, (SONY got rid of their shares so it's now just Loews) we're running 6 prints of Pearl Harbor. Our premiere house is running an
EK #00001, followed by EK #00008, then a select #00009, then the reg. prints.
Upstairs in IMAX, I was told they have a couple of prints specifically for large format screens (indicated by "LARGE" printed on the label). We were told directly not to use them on any of our screens.

As for the dye transfer prints, there may have been a mix up with some information I provided over the phone to Larry Davis. About 2 weeks before its release, we had a huge press/media screening in which I now distinctly remember seeing on the technicolor label "B-DYE". I believe I may have told Larry that the prints marked "b-dye" were running in IMAX when they actually weren't even in the building... ooops.

Tal.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-02-2001, 02:40 AM:

I agree with Brad. Any theater that actually needs "backup prints" truly sucks major ass. And what is this theater that can't even play both digital and analog sound correctly doing with a dye transfer print in the first place? Perhaps the distribution of such prints could better be thought out so only fully functional theaters receive them.

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 06-02-2001, 08:13 AM:

So, we now know that there are special prints for large screens such as IMAX. Now, can anyone tell us just what is different about them? Most likely not dye transfer, but timed differently?

Mark L.

Posted by Christopher Seo (Member # 7) on 06-02-2001, 09:43 AM:

The print used for the outdoor (aircraft carrier) premiere, I'm told, was an EK timed 2 points lighter than normal (for something like an 80 foot screen?). This print was probably then passed on to a large-screen theatre.

Posted by Mervyn Collard (Member # 916) on 07-17-2001, 05:09 PM:

I'm surprised that you have dye transfer prints in the States I thought that system had gone forever. Technicolor in the UK defintely do not print dye transfer prints any more. I believe all their printing equipment for that system went to China. I'd love to know more about Dye Transfer in the States as it was the premier colour system. I'd love to heatr from anybody about this.

------------------

Posted by Aaron Sisemore (Member # 145) on 07-17-2001, 07:50 PM:

Technicolor Hollywood began striking limited numbers of dye-transfer prints beginning in 1998 with 'Bulworth'. There are only a small amount of IB prints struck for selected titles. Some of the titles that I can remember had prints made in the 'new' Technicolor Dye-Transfer process since 1998:

Bulworth
Gone With The Wind (1998 1.33:1-in-a-scope-frame version)
Godzilla 1998
Wizard of Oz "Special Edition" (1.33:1 full-frame prints only, the 'cropped' prints were Eastman)
Apt Pupil (YES, there were IB prints of this)
The 13th Warrior
Toy Story 2
Family Man
Pearl Harbor

They are constantly working out the bugs in the process (which were painfully obvious in the prints of Bulworth and GWTW, but have been greatly improved since). I am sure that I might have missed a few titles on the list as well.

Aaron