Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Universal switching to Technicolor lab?

This is topic Universal switching to Technicolor lab? 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=004936

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-26-2003, 12:07 AM:

Was Bruce Almighty the first of a change in printing labs for Universal, or just a one time thing (perhaps due to Deluxe not being able to fill the order)? The two prints of Bruce Almighty I saw looked absolutely fantastic! The image was rock steady, which is amazing for a flat movie ran on high speed printers. The "white" scenes were pure clear footage and there wasn't a blemish on the entire thing. Excellent color, contrast and sharpness. I would be thrilled to see this kind of quality again. Anyone else noticed the high quality of these prints? Anyone have any info on Universal possibly switching labs? Universal normally puts out some of the worst prints between the major Hollywood studios.

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 05-26-2003, 12:35 AM:

My prints looked great too.

If I'm not mistaken, I'm currently running more Technicolor prints than Deluxe prints. Usually it's Deluxe by at least 2 to 1.

They even attatched the stickers (tops) on the heads and tails soundtrack up... wow eh?

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 05-26-2003, 12:37 AM:

my prints looked pretty good except for one of the reels had some signs that the transfer negative in use was showing signs of wearing out.

Posted by Aaron Sisemore (Member # 145) on 05-26-2003, 01:15 AM:

The print I saw on Friday had tons of black and purple splotches a la Deluxe throughout R5 and R6 [Frown]

and it was a Tech Hollywood print.

-Aaron

Posted by Ken Layton (Member # 133) on 05-26-2003, 09:03 AM:

I always thought Universal had a more-or-less permanent contract with Technicolor since around 1940.

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 05-26-2003, 01:05 PM:

I'm not surprised. Screen Attractions is using Technicolor/CFI for all prints of the "Showbiz Clock", and for reprints of current library titles.

I just got answer prints from them on Saturday and they are indeed beautiful! The colorists did a particularly good job. Likewise, each department has been very good about keeping in touch and making sure these jobs are done right. I'm well pleased.

They are 'the greatest name in color'!
Showbiz Clock

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 05-26-2003, 01:34 PM:

The print of Bruce Almighty that I saw last night had such a bizarre image darkening during the diner scene, that I thought the lamp had lost a seal. It lasted for maybe three minutes and then everything was fine again. Someone must have turned on a light in the darkroom. Oddly, though, it was accompanied by a DTS dropout at the same time.

Posted by Aaron Sisemore (Member # 145) on 05-26-2003, 03:18 PM:

quote:
I always thought Universal had a more-or-less permanent contract with Technicolor since around 1940.

Universal changed its printing lab to DeLuxe in the late 80's.

-Aaron

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 05-26-2003, 04:26 PM:

It was not released by Universal but "DOWN WITH LOVE" from Fox was one of the most horrid print I saw. It was suppose to recreate the look of a early sixties film but failed because of the lousy print quality. In my opinion, I had no problems with Universal's print quality in recent years. They looked great in my opinion such as the two "MUMMY" pictures, "JURASSIC PARK 1-II- III" and many other films. The best print quality pictures I have enjoyed from Universal were in IB Technicolor in the forties and fifties were all breathtaking!

-Claude

Posted by John T. Hendrickson, Jr (Member # 849) on 05-26-2003, 06:35 PM:

Our two prints of Bruce Almighty are great. I've noticed an increase in the number of Technicolor prints we have received in the last couple of months. It's a breath of fresh air, compaired to the quality of the Delux prints we have been receiving. Let's hope the trend continues. [thumbsup]

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-27-2003, 09:30 AM:

quote:
...bizarre image darkening during the diner scene, that I thought the lamp had lost a seal. It lasted for maybe three minutes and then everything was fine again. Someone must have turned on a light in the darkroom. Oddly, though, it was accompanied by a DTS dropout at the same time.

A blue/cyan colored fogging across the entire printed image (may also affect the reading of the soundtracks) is usually due to excessive exposure to the amber-colored "safelights" used in lab darkrooms when printing and processing color prints:

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/illumination/page01.blind

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/technical/illumination.shtml

If unprocessed print film is accidently exposed to "white lights" like tungsten, fluorescent or daylight, the fogging is usually yellow or brown in color, because print film's blue-sensitive (yellow dye) layer is much more sensitive to light than the red or green sensitive layers.

Posted by Les Brock (Member # 1041) on 05-30-2003, 05:27 AM:

Here in Europe Universal has recently moved it's processing from Deluxe to Technicolor.

I would assume that the same deal applies in the US and your Universal movies will in future be printed by Technicolor.

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 05-30-2003, 01:30 PM:

For the record... I just received first-trials off of dupe negatives today. They are virtually indistinguishable from prints made off our original negative!

This was a pleasant surprise; I expected to at least see SOME increase in grain.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-30-2003, 01:35 PM:

quote:
I just received first-trials off of dupe negatives today. They are virtually indistinguishable from prints made off our original negative!

This was a pleasant surprise; I expected to at least see SOME increase in grain.

Not if they used Kodak VISION Color Intermediate Film:
[Smile]

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products/lab/5242.shtml

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 05-31-2003, 12:35 AM:

That's absolutely right, John. It costs a bit more, but we've spared no expense on this production.

[ 05-31-2003, 09:00 AM: Message edited by: Tim Reed ]

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 06-06-2003, 05:53 AM:

Aha! Universal's 2 Fast 2 Furious released today was ALSO printed at Technicolor lab! The prints I saw looked absolutely fantastic! Does anyone know if this is a permanent switch? [Cool]

Posted by Les Brock (Member # 1041) on 06-06-2003, 11:49 AM:

Brad, yes it is a permanent switch.

Technicolor are servicing Universal's print orders.

Posted by Greg Routenburg (Member # 1742) on 06-06-2003, 12:32 PM:

All of these new Technicolor/Universal prints that i've recieved have all come tails up. Is this a trend that everyone else has been noticing? It makes make-up day an absolute dream.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 06-06-2003, 02:25 PM:

Thanks Les! Such wonderful news. Universal used to always have the worst prints of anything coming out of Deluxe for some reason...but no more. [Smile]

Posted by Aaron Sisemore (Member # 145) on 07-29-2003, 08:54 PM:

Apparently its not a 'permanent' switch: I recently handled a print of 'Johnny English' that was made at Deluxe Toronto.

-Aaron

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 07-30-2003, 12:25 AM:

quote:
A blue/cyan colored fogging across the entire printed image (may also affect the reading of the soundtracks) is usually due to excessive exposure to the amber-colored "safelights" used in lab darkrooms when printing and processing color prints:

You mention this fairly frequently, John. If this is a common problem, why isn't it being fixed?

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 07-30-2003, 01:30 AM:

Deluxe Toronto does good work (the used to be better than Tech Hollywood, although they seem to be slipping a bit, judging by the prints that I've seen lately). It's Deluxe Hollywood that has problems and apparently has for decades (Eastmancolor prints from them seem to fade far faster than those from other labs).

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 07-30-2003, 08:07 AM:

Jack Ondracek asked about "safelight" fog:

quote:
You mention this fairly frequently, John. If this is a common problem, why isn't it being fixed?

"Safelight" fogging is usually a "people problem". Lab personnel need some light to work, especially in the printing and print processing areas where thousands of feet of film are zipping around at some pretty high speeds on equipment you would not want to fall into. So few workers may tamper with the safelights to get more light, or may misuse them (hold them too close or too long near the unprocessed film). Busy or vacation times sometimes bring more incidents of fog, since personnel unfamiliar with proper lab safelight procedures may be filling in for more experienced workers. The cost of replacing reels usually makes this a problem that is quickly addressed by the lab when the person causing it is identified:

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/illumination/page01.blind

Scott wrote:

quote:
It's Deluxe Hollywood that has problems and apparently has for decades (Eastmancolor prints from them seem to fade far faster than those from other labs).

That's a very UNFAIR generalization. [Frown]

There is no doubt that improper processing can affect the dye stability of prints. But using anececdotal incidents from prints processed decades ago to comment on the quality of today's lab operations is meaningless. The processes are different (ECP vs. ECP-2D), the films are different, the machines are different, almost EVERYTHING has changed for the better.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 07-30-2003, 08:42 AM:

quote:
That's a very UNFAIR generalization. There is no doubt that improper processing can affect the dye stability of prints. But using anececdotal incidents from prints processed decades ago to comment on the quality of today's lab operations is meaningless. The processes are different (ECP vs. ECP-2D), the films are different, the machines are different, almost EVERYTHING has changed for the better.

Definitely agreed. Sorry I wasn't clear. I was trying to make two different points: a) that today's general release prints from Deluxe Toronto look better than those from Deluxe Hollywood (in general, though I've seen some stunning EK prints from Deluxe Hollywood) and that b) Deluxe Hollywood doesn't exactly have a history of providing quality release prints. I wasn't trying to use examples of older prints as evidence that new prints from Deluxe Hollywood will fade faster than other prints (who knows? they might not fade at all!).

I don't know why Deluxe Hollywood's prints don't look as good as many other labs', but I do know that many others will agree with me that their prints seem to have inferior color and contrast to those produced elsewhere.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 07-30-2003, 09:28 AM:

Frankly, the differences in print quality that I notice usually seem more dependent on the cinematography than the lab. Poor lighting, inappropriate filtration, underexposure, using grainier fast films when they are not needed, misuse of Super-35, etc. can all contribute to lower image quality.

There certainly are lab issues, many driven by the cost and time pressures of modern distribution, where thousands of prints must be in theatres within a week of the final cut negative being delivered. Kodak is partnering with labs to address these issues, including safelight improvements, printer steadiness improvements, better on-line cleaning, new duplicate negative and sound negative films with better scratch and static resistance, enabling use of 4K digital intermediate, eliminating soundtrack silver application problems, etc.

Having to get a replacement reel is a pain, for both you AND the lab.

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 07-30-2003, 10:00 AM:

quote:
Frankly, the differences in print quality that I notice usually seem more dependent on the cinematography than the lab.

With the new intermission clock Justin and I produced, we tested the same footage at three different labs and it made all the difference in the world. Same stock. Our last choice, Technicolor, N. Hollywood, gave us the stunning results you see in our release prints today.

Online Catalog

Like Scott said, color and contrast were the big issues. Some of the footage I shot looks like dye transfer in the prints from Technicolor, while the competitor's versions are somewhat washed out and not as vivid!

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-30-2003, 02:42 PM:

John, I have routinely received 2 prints of the same movie, one from Deluxe Toronto and one from Deluxe Hollywood. The Toronto print always looks noticeably better and has less registration issues than the same movie printed at Hollywood. Technicolor prints as a general rule always look better than Deluxe prints, so I have a hard time believing that this amazing repeatable coincidence is purely because the best cinematographers just happen to shoot for studios who use Technicolor.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 07-30-2003, 03:11 PM:

What I said is based on my personal experience when I see movies in theatres. I'm usually pretty good at separating lab issues from camera exposure/lighting issues, and most often, "low contrast" and "washed out" color are exposure issues (and sometimes a deliberate creative choice by the director and cinematographer).

In almost all cases, distributors must approve the final "check print" before the lab can go into production with a release, and sampled release prints are usually compared to the approved check print.

Posted by Robert Harris (Member # 1712) on 07-30-2003, 07:39 PM:

Even in the late 1980s, the Eastman duplicating stocks (5243) provided a dupe image which many filmmakers, inclusive of Sir David, felt looked better than the original.

The difference is just the slightest softening through two generations, of the outermost edges of each bit of grain, which yielded a more velvet-like image, looking as if the grain was reduced.

In my humble opinion Eastman intermediates are in the same category as a fine aged port.

RAH