This is topic fade-outs 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=003224
Posted by Michael Brown (Member # 890) on 03-21-2002, 11:23 AM:
Lets say i'm building a film (for a tower).The end of a reel is a fade to black (frame lines present)
Lets assume There are cue marks.
Should the splice be 24 frames from the last cue mark.
(and if there are no cue marks or incorrect hand made cue marks, What should i do)
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 03-21-2002, 11:36 AM:
I think there are a couple of different standards so you might check a non fadeout reel to see which is in use on your print. I believe the more common standard is that the changeover cue is 24 frames from the end INclusive of the 4 dot frames, so 20 frames of additional picture after the dots should be included in your build. (Obviously there is no point to a check frame when it's black anyway.) The other standard is 24 frames EXclusive of the dot frames.
Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 03-21-2002, 11:37 AM:
I understand the cue mark location has been changed recently. Steve Kraus beat me to this one. Steve is correct.
Posted by Christopher Seo (Member # 7) on 03-24-2002, 01:54 AM:
What would be the need to change cue locations? I was pretty surprised to see the SMPTE standard regarding changeover cues (SMPTE 301-1999)... it specifies 18 frames after the changeover cue. Huh? What an odd number. And I have never seen a reel printed like this. Was this a recent revision? Can someone explain the reasoning behind 18 frames (and why no one uses it)?
Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 03-24-2002, 02:24 AM:
Christopher, sometimes I think some people have to justify their damn jobs and change something that has worked for years.
Posted by Michael Brown (Member # 890) on 03-24-2002, 06:50 AM:
A had a print of Monty Python and the holy grail (a new print) with hand made cues placed 4 frames from the end of the reel!Unless it had been around 20 cinemas who had all removed a frame !!
Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 03-24-2002, 08:28 AM:
The difference in cue spacing is basically to accomodate the different head leaders
Posted by Jeffry L. Johnson (Member # 453) on 03-24-2002, 10:17 AM:
The 18 frames between changeover cue and the runout section of the foot leader specified in SMPTE-301 match the original Academy Leader standard, Z22.55. Note that the SMPTE-301 head leader is based upon the Academy Leader (16 frames per film unit or "film-foot") not the Universal Leader. The Universal Leader is based upon time not feet.
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 03-24-2002, 11:19 AM:
I'm not following why the type of head leader matters. My reference point in my own usage is 9 ft. It makes no difference to me whether I use a 9 ft. mark on a footage countdown or 6 seconds on a SMPTE Universal leader.
Posted by Jeffry L. Johnson (Member # 453) on 03-24-2002, 05:47 PM:
SMPTE-55 (SMPTE Universal Leader)
Motor Cue
4 frames
Distance between Cues
168 frames
Changeover Cue
4 frames
Distance to Last Frame
24 frames
TOTAL LENGTH
200 FRAMES
====================
ASA Z22.55 (Academy Leader) and SMPTE-301 (SMPTE Projection Leader)
Motor Cue
4 frames
Distance between Cues
172 frames
Changeover Cue
4 frames
Distance to Last Frame
18 frames
TOTAL LENGTH
198 FRAMES
====================Then you'll have to ask the authors of the original documents.
SMPTE-55, the Universal Leader standard, has 7 seconds between motor cue and changeover cue and has 1 second between changeover cue and foot leader section. SMPTE-301 follows the original Academy Leader standard, ASA Z22.55.
One of the main reasons for the creation of SMPTE-301 was because some laboratories were following different standards for leaders and cue marks. Some labs used Academy leaders but followed the SMPTE-55 cue spacing. That 6 frame difference can make a difference in your changeover.
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 03-25-2002, 04:16 AM:
One way to solve Michael's problem would be to impose the death penalty on any editor or negative cutter who ends a reel with a fade out (or starts one with a fade in).In the days before platters and towers, editors were actually encouraged to do this because it minimised the chances of cocking up a changeover. But on long play, it increases the risk of someone either making a join out of rack or simply cutting off the fade altogether.
You could argue that editors and negative cutters shouldn't have to worry about incompetent projectionists, but neither should cinema customers and if getting rid of fades on reel ends improves presentation overall then I'd be for it.
Posted by Bruce McGee (Member # 131) on 03-25-2002, 09:48 AM:
I've got a nice 1936 B/W feature in the collection that has a fade-out at the end of all 5 reels. I've run it in 3 different platter situations, and never had any problems with out-of-frame splices.Of course, I built it myself... 
I have a long length of clear film with frame-lines that runs across the length of my bench. Great for checking those new additions to the collection here at Fiasco Films Co.
Not slamming any of you guys, of course, but, I've never had a problem with fade-outs at the reel ends. Lucky, I guess...
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 03-25-2002, 10:24 AM:
Fade-out / fade-in would seem like a great way to do the reel breaks from an editor's standpoint but besides the current issues regarding lazy platter people I don't think it was such a hot idea even when reel to reel was the norm. For one thing, you'd be changing from black to black and even the slightest difference in lamp intensity (carbon arcs, remember) is going to be readily apparent.
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 03-25-2002, 10:28 AM:
No-one who cares enough to read a website like this is going to have much of a problem finding frame lines, and if they do they'll solve it. However, it is a sad fact that there are people out there who don't care, do have a problem and won't do anything about it. In my projecting days I sometimes came across prints where several feet of a slow fade out or in had quite simply been chopped off.If not placing fades on a reel end would prevent these morons from doing this, then everyone is better off. Personally I like fades at the end of reels because (assuming the lamp intensities match or the print is running on a platter) you're less likely to see a join go through if it's on black film. But I'd much rather have a join on a bright scene than risk someone cutting off several seconds of action.
Posted by Andy Muirhead (Member # 712) on 03-25-2002, 06:35 PM:
As i mentioned in a previous thread on this subject, I really don't like fade-outs/ins on reel changes as usually the picture fades are accompanied by sound fades, and unless you're running digital, there will still be noticeable audio when the splice runs through.That's on top of all the other usual arguments
Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 03-25-2002, 11:49 PM:
Speaking of cues, what's with the Fremch? For the most part they don't put them on at all.
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 03-26-2002, 04:56 AM:
Yes, none of the LTC or Eclair prints I showed ever had lab-printed cue dots on them. The result, of course, was that people applied their own and many of these prints had blizzards of cue marks at the end of each reel - tippex, paper hole punch, felt tip pen, you name it. And I've seen films in several French arthouse venues that run changeovers, so it's not as if they just don't do reel to reel.
Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 03-26-2002, 05:33 PM:
Yes!: I ran a French film awhile ago without cue marks. The film was about migrating birds. Stunning photography... until the end of each reel!