Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: filmstock of ET re-release

This is topic filmstock of ET re-release 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=003758

Posted by Dave Ganoe (Member # 53) on 07-23-2002, 11:59 AM:

Can anyone tell me what stock the re-release of ET is on? Are any new features release in true technicolor(IB)? Thanks.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 07-23-2002, 12:35 PM:

Ask Technicolor:
http://www.technicolor.com/services/index.html

e-mail: info@technicolor.com

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: +1 585 477 5325 Cell: +1 585 781 4036 Fax: +1 585 722 7243
e-mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

Posted by Jeff Taylor (Member # 443) on 07-23-2002, 01:03 PM:

Technicolor indicates the Universal City dye transfer line is currently shut down for "retooling". Not encouraging, given the low volume and lackluster marketing devoted to it over the last 2-3 years.

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 07-23-2002, 01:09 PM:

Our print was on Kodak Vision Premier.

Posted by John Schulien (Member # 215) on 10-03-2002, 03:15 PM:

Perhaps the Techinicolor dye transfer line is back in production --

I just picked up a schedule from the Music Box in Chicago, and found the following on the inside:

quote:
The 50th Anniversary presentation of America's favorite Musical Comedy ``Singin' in the Rain'' starring Gene Kelly, Debbie Reynolds and Donald O'Connor Screens Christmas Day through New Years with daily matinees! New 35mm Technicolor Print specially struck for the Music Box Theatre by Warner Brothers/MGM

I know that WB/MGM have spent a considerable amount of money recently on Singin' -- producing a new digital projection master, but I wasn't aware that new dye transfer prints were being struck. Does anyone have any information about the new print run -- Are these prints being struck from old matrices? New matrices struck from the original copy negatives? New matrices derived from the digital projection master?

Posted by Martin Brooks (Member # 1269) on 10-03-2002, 05:20 PM:

The Film Forum is also going to be playing Singin' In the Rain from November 15 to 21. Their description of the print is as follows:

"This vibrant new 35mm print (from a negative derived from the original 3-strip Technicolor separations) uses the film's original multi-track orchestral recordings (originally mixed into mono) to create true Dolby digital stereo for the very first time!"

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 10-03-2002, 08:06 PM:

John Schulien wrote: "New 35mm Technicolor Print specially struck for the Music Box Theatre by Warner Brothers/MGM"

Martin Brooks wrote: "This vibrant new 35mm print (from a negative derived from the original 3-strip Technicolor separations)..."

I interpret these two statements as saying that a new duplicate negative was made using the B&W separation positives, and new incorporated coupler prints (e.g., on Kodak VISION Color Print Film) are being made by Technicolor laboratories. Since there is no mention of making new matrices, I suspect these are not dye transfer prints. We shall see...maybe there will be both kinds of prints?

Posted by Jeff Taylor (Member # 443) on 10-04-2002, 01:08 PM:

My source tells me that two new IB lines are both in storage currently (i.e. nothing running). However, I am also told that one or more of the original "IB guys" who were brought back for the short period the line was operating are still there under contract. Soooo, it's anybody's guess when or if the line(s) will be reactivated.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 10-04-2002, 05:43 PM:

I wish someone at Technicolor would read these forums and pay particular attention in regards to dye transfer printing. DAMN those prints look good!!! I really wish they would start offering dye transfer regular release printing. Just imagine how incredible movies like "The Grinch" and "Moulin Rouge" would have looked in dye transfer! Now don't get me wrong, the "Moulin Rouge" prints looked very, very good (the "Grinch" prints I ran were the worst I have ever seen), but nothing could have touched seeing that in true dye transfer. As far as I'm concerned, EVERY movie can benefit from dye transfer printing. Even a colorless movie like "Saving Private Ryan" would have looked better. Just imagine seeing that movie with truly sharp contrast and super white whites.

Then there's dye transfer on a silver screen. Mmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Posted by Jeff Joseph (Member # 511) on 10-06-2002, 02:37 PM:

No, the new "Singin'" prints are NOT dye-transfer. There are currently no new dye-transfer prints being made. When the film industry uses the term "Technicolor", it refers to the lab itself, not the dye-tranfer process.

Jeff Joseph
SabuCat Productions

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

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 10-08-2002, 05:48 AM:

And to complicate things even more, when exhibitors use ANY technical term in their publicity releases, there's a 50/50 chance they don't know what they are talking about in the first place, or worse, they KNOW what they are talking about, but will use whatever words have the most hype, true or false.

When a title releases wide, prints go directly from the lab to the theatre. Many times, when the run breaks, a good proportion of the prints coming out of the theatres will not play any other engagements but will be junked. I suppose in such a case, an exhibitor can say, loosely and probably without loosing too much sleep over truth-in-advertising ethics, that indeed "the print of SUCH AND SUCH was specially struck for the So and So Cinema by This or That Studio." From the perspective that the print only played that theatre, then it was struck "specially" for that engagement.

I would be interested in knowing what exactly that statement "specially struck for the Music Box Theatre by Warner Brothers/MGM" actually means. It certainly doesn't mean the Music Box is the one who get to use that print. So if it goes to another theatre after the Music Box, all that statement means is that this print went from the TES to the Music Box first. It wasn't struck any more "specially struck" for the Music Box than the 70mm print of 2001 was struck specially for the Astor Plaza, even though they were the first ones to play it (and damage it). Unless the Music Box actually paid for the print (then do they get to keep it?). Fat chance.

It's like when I stick the phrase "Brooklyn Center Cinema, by special arrangement with Warner Brother proudly presents...."

Well, YAH it's by special arrangement -- I pay them money....they send me a print....SPECIAL ARRANGEMENT. It's all in the eye of the beholder. Then there are the sticky banners that you past up sideways across the 1-sheets "LIMITED ENGAGEMENT" Well, YAH, it's a limited engagement....we don't play any picture for more than three days so EVERY engagement is LIMITED. This is the MOVIE business; we live by hype.

Of course all this is conjecture on my part, and you know cynical is my middle name, so if I sound skeptical of the copywriter of the Music Box, I apologize for my disbelief; but that being said, I would be the first to levitate with joy if someone can actually confirm that, yes indeed, Warners now strikes new prints for the small art house, just for the asking. If it is indeed true, I will humbly do my mea culpas.

Frank

Posted by Martin Brooks (Member # 1269) on 10-08-2002, 06:54 PM:

If a theatre is the first to play a print, I have no problem with them stating that the print was specially struck for them. All I care about as a customer is whether the print is new. If the theatre asked that the print be struck because they were having a festival of like-minded films, great. If the studio was re-releasing the film anyway in advance of a DVD release and the theatre happens to be the one getting the print, that's fine too. Makes no difference to me.

Posted by John Schulien (Member # 215) on 10-08-2002, 11:58 PM:

I agree. I read "specially struck for this theatre", and read, "Brand new print." So long as it's a brand new print, I don't care if it was "specially struck", or whether the particular theatre simply got first dibs on a new print run. Doesn't matter. Upshot is that it's a new print.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 10-11-2002, 09:34 AM:

Agreed. Unless of course that print is DAMAGED by the theatre that it was "specially struck" for. "Brand new print" might mean you are going to get a pristine presentation, but if you live in NYC and happen to be going to the Astor Plaza to see the new 70mm print of 2001, you would find scratches and dirt on it -- garbage that you wouldn't expect from a Brand New Print.

Frank