quote:

---

It's all about money. As I understand it, framelines cost more, and as such that makes them a bad thing.

---

??? Figures.

One would think on features that fade out and/or fade in at a reel change they would clearly mark ONE frame line at least so you could see where things start/end. I know lots of tricks to figure it out, but the point is, I shouldn't have to. Oh, well.
 

---

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 01-02-2003, 02:31 PM:
 
Jim,

Do yours have the same funny little white markings on the analog track on the tail of the "Coming Soon"? Ours have it on both the scope and flat versions.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-02-2003, 04:17 PM:
 
In the future please just edit your existing post instead of making a new post a couple of minutes later... thanks.

Anything that costs money is bad. Anything. Period. Money belongs in only one place... the pockets of the CEO!

If Filmack is using Scotchgard/Photogard/Imagegard on their snipes, then Filmack sucks! I have heard cases that after a year or two they start reflecting the light from the sound reader in a way to where the sound becomes pretty messed up and eventually unusable. In fact someone was bitching at me because this happened when they used Filmguard. A year later after several dizen runs per day, it was unplayable. It was eventually discovered that it was Photogard that caused the problem, and the person relaying the incident confused the two names.
 

---

Posted by Doug Willming (Member # 728) on 01-02-2003, 05:28 PM:
 
As a guy who actually makes policy trailers, and has spent more than a few hours on rewinds trying to figure where framelines are, I understand the problem. I have been frustrated in the past trying to set up negs to include black leader with frame lines only to have some guy at the lab chop it off and edit the lab leader with a splice right before the picture starts. I usually use CFI for printing now, and they use a short academy (2pop only leader) that looks like it would work ok most of the time.

As for Scotchgard, I know some people swear by it, but I think it is mainly a source of extra profit by Filmack, who seems to be the only one anymore extolling it's virtues. I don't know of any labs that offer it anymore and the people at CFI and Deluxe have both told me they consider it a waste of money and that there is no demand for it. I don't mean to slam a competitor - but I have lost some business in the past from folks that just refused to buy a print of something without Scotchgard. I guess this is kind of a new thread, but what do you guys think of it? Does it offer any added value?

Doug Willming
PreShow Productions
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-02-2003, 05:41 PM:
 
Nope! If anything it makes the print worse. Focus suffers and the entire picture is unsteady with the Photoguard applied.

What the extra money should be spent on is quality filmstock. I never did like that Agfa stuff the old Cinemark trailers were printed on. I remember getting some advance copies on Kodak LPP stock that looked magnificent, but when the regular crate 'o policy trailers arrived, the Agfa prints lacked bite to the image.
 

---

Posted by Doug Willming (Member # 728) on 01-02-2003, 06:18 PM:
 
We don't use Agfa anymore at all - CFI said they dropped it because of problems (major inconsistencies in the stock, apparently). I never much liked it either, but it was cheap, and when the circuits are hammering you for price breaks......

We usually use Fuji now - better price than Kodak and nobody's complained so far... any comments?
 

---

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 01-02-2003, 06:28 PM:
 

quote:

---

I usually use CFI for printing now, and they use a short academy (2pop only leader) that looks like it would work ok

---

quote:

---

We usually use Fuji now - better price than Kodak and nobody's complained so far... any comments?

---

Ditto here. Our last few projects have been shot and printed on Fuji, which I like the color saturation of. I still have some NOS prints on AGFA, though. Good results for the price.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-02-2003, 06:45 PM:
 
Fuji? No problem with it at all. I find it tends to have richer colors and tends to have sharper contrast, but that could also be the way New Line shoots. New Line (Fuji) prints almost always have super deep black blacks and vibrant colors. Then again, New Line also commonly has inexcusable negative and interpositive dirt. I've noticed that Two Towers seems to be plagued with the "green syndrome", where whites are actually a very light shade of green.

I've noticed each studio tends to have a "look" like this (with exceptions of course). For example, Warner Bros has a nice clean sharp look to their image, but there is always too much green (Kodak). Buena Vista is the best, as their whites are actually stark white and their blacks are commonly pitch black (Kodak). Paramount seems to get it right 50% of the time (Kodak). They either have magnificent color balance and excellent contrast, or it is murky and green with poor registration. Sony is hit and miss, but I've never been completely impressed with any Sony print. Dreamworks is probably #2 or 3 on my list. Most of the time they have excellent prints, but often they don't have the "bite" that BV and New Line does.

Can anyone explain why the pattern from studio to studio? I would have assumed it would've depended on the DP and director of the film, but I keep seeing these consistencies. And what is it with the lab's fascination with green???
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 01-02-2003, 10:12 PM:
 
Color timing is an art in itself and budget dictates how much time is allowed for it
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 01-03-2003, 07:58 AM:
 
Brad wrote: "Fuji? No problem with it at all. I find it tends to have richer colors and tends to have sharper contrast, but that could also be the way New Line shoots. New Line (Fuji) prints almost always have super deep black blacks and vibrant colors. Then again, New Line also commonly has inexcusable negative and interpositive dirt. I've noticed that Two Towers seems to be plagued with the "green syndrome", where whites are actually a very light shade of green."

Each manufacturer's print stock has a different "look". Certainly the lab's color timing and process chemistry can affect the color and tone scale, but having whites that are consistently "a very light shade of green" may be a stock characteristic.

White (negative) dirt may be from poor handling of the negative, but often is due to dirt on the print film raw stock, that casts a "shadow image", leaving a white speck. Again, often a stock characteristic.

Kodak VISION Color Print Film was designed to have very little dirt from slitting and perforating, and the finishing operations have been engineered to produce the cleanest possible product. IMHO, the difference shows on the screen.
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 01-03-2003, 08:12 AM:
 
John writes:

quote:

---

My other "gripes" with trailers include the practice of not using larger cores (to avoid core-set "clockspringing" and to improve focus stability)...

---

I agree. Whoever invented 2" cores has a lot to answer for. They were a particular menace in the days of acetate when they would be used in order to force a slightly oversized reel into a 2,000 foot can. The result was either that the core would fall out as you attempted to lift the roll out of the can, or that the 100-200 feet nearest the centre would be so deformed as to cause focus problems or, if fed from a platter, film transport issues. Elements acquired by an archive after years of storage on a 2" core can sometimes be so shrunk and deformed as to need wet-gate step printing.

We use inert polypropylene 4" cores when recanning an element.
 

---

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 01-03-2003, 09:31 AM:
 
Umm, Leo, in the US trailers come on 1" cores (or "sleeves" if you prefer).

--jhawk
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 01-03-2003, 09:34 AM:
 
jhawk wrote: "Umm, Leo, in the US trailers come on 1" cores (or "sleeves" if you prefer)."

And sometimes no core at all! Just a 1-inch diameter hole in the center of the roll.

A "Film Done Wrong" practice that results in focus flutter (core-set clockspringing) and handling cinches.
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 01-03-2003, 09:47 AM:
 
I'd be _happy_ to get trailers on 2" cores, but that's pretty rare here. The 2" cores are used for camera stock, so I would think that they could easily be recycled for trailer use. Of course, 3" or 4" cores would be better, but I can't be too picky here.

Other trailer rants: Leaders are often too short. A full countdown would be nice, but at least 2-3 feet of blank leader at the head and tail would be an improvement on what is common at this time. Also, get rid of those silly "TV cues" that appear right before the picture starts and often overlap the soundtrack. I understand that they are useful for TV work, but they are useless and annoying for theatrical trailers. I've been coloring them in with a Sharpie, but they are still visible on screen and cannot be removed without causing a disruption in the soundtrack. Oh, and is anyone else running the new "Sundance Film Festival" promo trailer? It has _three_ countdowns and the soundtrack begins before the last countdown ends. It doesn't sound too bad if it is cut on the frame right after the "2", though, so that is what I have been doing. Also it has a single cue mark in the middle of the otherwise-black tail. Grr.

As for Kodak vs. Fuji--Tim's animation definitely looks better on Fuji. I don't know if it is a stock issue or a lab issue, but the difference is very noticeable. For live-action films, though, I prefer the Kodak look in most cases, preferably when printed at Deluxe Toronto or Technicolor Hollywood.
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 01-03-2003, 10:09 AM:
 
Yes. Camera negative film is usually packaged on a 2-inch core (to allow more compact camera magazines). Lab films are wound on 3-inch cores. Recycled cores are readily available:

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/h1/sizesP.shtml#cores

http://www.fpchollywood.com/cores.html
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-03-2003, 11:00 AM:
 
Scott... I know what you mean about the Sundance trailers. However the last countdown is SUPPOSED to actually be projected onscreen. Notice how it looks completely different than the first two, which are the same. But the way they print the thing they don't give you much of a clue. And also any trailer with credits is just lame lame lame! At least we know who to blame!

I also hate any "trailer" or ad that uses fake dirt and/or scratches and/or keystoning and/or bad aperture like the Sundance does. When that's the first thing that hits the screen, it gives the audience the impression that you suck much ass, but it's actually the trailer itself. I bet Sundance sucks ass. I will boycott their film festival. That'll show 'em.
 

---

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 01-03-2003, 01:13 PM:
 

quote:

---

I also hate any "trailer" or ad that uses fake dirt and/or scratches and/or keystoning and/or bad aperture like the Sundance does.

---

Take a look at "Confessions of a Dangerous Mind" when you get a chance. There are parts of the trailer where there's black text on a red background that's COVERED in gobs and gobs of simulated dirt for that "look". First time I saw it, I was like "HOLY !!" But then realized the "dirt" was only at those parts. Still, looks bad on screen and leaves people in the audience thinking they saw dirty film. Call your bookers! Boycott this film!!

Charles may chime in on this one, but it figures it's a MIRAMAX film!
=TMP=
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 01-03-2003, 05:03 PM:
 
Joe--it's interesting that you have these trailers, as I had suspected that it was a Landmark-specific thing. Guess not. Are you _sure_ that the countdown is supposed to be shown? If so, that's a great way to make the projectionist look like a real moron, if you ask me. Not that those trailers don't do a good enough job of that as it is.

Anyway, if I ever travel for a significant distance to attend one of the major festivals, I will be going to Telluride (and will say hi to Ian there). Sundance is apparently pretty boring now and there have been many stories of projection problems in the past. Sadly, Sundance seems to be more about selling films than about enjoying them.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-03-2003, 07:53 PM:
 
Scott... take a look at the last countdown, the B&W one. It has the same artificial keystoning as the rest of the trailer, plus has fake dirt and scratches in it. After you are done being amazed at the creativity of all those who created the trailer, listen to the audio during the third countdown (it helps to have a trailer with the third countdown intact for this). It beeps for EVERY NUMBER! No real countdown would ever do this (hopefully). It also beeps when the Sundance logo first appears onscreen. They did this intentionally.

Yes, it does make the projectionist look like a moron. Please memorize the names during the trailer credits and then stalk these people for me. I can't believe they think people care enough about this ad that they want to see the credits of those who made it. They must be really proud of it.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-03-2003, 08:35 PM:
 
But Joe and Scott, it is FILM and by film's very nature it MUST be dirty. The mere fact that there is a scratch MUST mean that it was ran on a platter too, because people who think film must be dirty and platters cause scratches are idiots, and that is the vast majority of the population (and unfortunately a lot of stupid people in this industry too).
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 01-03-2003, 08:48 PM:
 
Brad--thanks for the info. I'll be sure to add some more scratches, splices, and random cue marks just to make that trailer look more like "film." I'm almost tempted to put the weird countdowns back, but with the numbers spliced in out of order. At least it would then have some potential humor value for the more clueful audience members.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-03-2003, 09:20 PM:
 
Anyone ever notice that these "filmlike" effects never include diagonal scratches?
 

---

Posted by Christopher Seo (Member # 7) on 01-04-2003, 01:32 PM:
 
Platter scratches aren't chic because platters themselves aren't chic, Brad. That's why platters are never shown in movies that feature theatres. Filmmakers know that platters and their scratches would instantly destroy the film mystique.
 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 01-04-2003, 05:16 PM:
 
Mark J. said: "It's not a problem cutting them because you can see the "3" on one side, and the "FINISH" on the other side. But once they're cut, it's a bitch for the next guy to figure out if it's cut correctly when looking for a bad splice."

And knowing how hard that is, I always make it a point when I get a new trailer to use a Sharpie to mark where the frame lines are on two or three more frames. I put this ref mark in between the perferations. I know some guys who use the edge of a razor to scratch a small line between the perfs, but feel more comfortable using a marker.

Of course when running older analog films, this works fine and all you need to worry about is keeping your reference mark in the clear area between the perfs; with tri-digital prints, you need to be sure to pick the non-Dolby SRD side and then be careful your mark doesn't invade the SDDS track as well.

Anyone here know if the SDDS reader would complain if the mark were to slip into the SDDS digital track? It is only the width of the space between the sprockets, and it is pretty transparant....would the color make a difference, say green or blue as opposed to red?

Point is, if you are the guy making that first easy cut at the obvious frame line on a new trailer (one after the "3" frame and one before the "FINISH" frame), it only takes a few seconds to add a few extra marks that will help the next guy know where the frame lines are on what would otherwise now be completely black film without any frame reference.

In the repetory/art house, the "next guy" could very well be you a few months down the line when that same film is booked again.

Frank

[ 01-11-2003, 01:17 AM: Message edited by: Frank Angel ]
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-04-2003, 06:25 PM:
 
Technically you could make your mark from the edge of the picture all the way through the inboard SDDS track to the edge of the film and teh SDDS would not drop. However I still wouldn't make a habit of it, but if it slips now and then, no biggie.

Personally I never make any mark on trailers or the feature or anything. There really is no need. Just "break" the splices apart for storage. Then when you go to reuse them again, peel the tape and you are "in frame". Alternatively if you want to chop that frame, then just count 4 perfs over and you are still "in frame". My only beef is with people who peel the tape off before storage. Then I have to ask myself "is this an in-frame cut?" and I end up double checking. With the torn tape still on the film ends, I have no doubt.
 

---

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 01-04-2003, 07:02 PM:
 
Isn't magenta invisible to the SDDS reader? I think you can get magenta Sharpies.
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 01-06-2003, 07:33 AM:
 
Any ink that does NOT absorb much red light should be fairly "transparent" to a red LED reader like SDDS. So light magenta or yellow could be used.
 

---

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 01-06-2003, 08:06 AM:
 

quote:

---

My only beef is with people who peel the tape off before storage. Then I have to ask myself "is this an in-frame cut?" and I end up double checking.

---

A HA! I think you're on to something. Great idea to leave the tape on.

 

---

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 01-06-2003, 10:44 AM:
 

quote:

---

My only beef is with people who peel the tape off before storage. Then I have to ask myself "is this an in-frame cut?" and I end up double checking. With the torn tape still on the film ends, I have no doubt.

---