Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Horizontal green stripes flashing at top and bottom of screen. What are they???

This is topic Horizontal green stripes flashing at top and bottom of screen. What are they??? 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=005682

Posted by Kevin Wale (Member # 1851) on 12-25-2003, 04:09 PM:

First run of Peter Pan and I notice these streaks accross the top and bottom of the screen. They flash from time to time and seem to be near the frame lines. I'm running filmguard and I've checked all film paths. I don't know if it's the print or a lamp issue.

It's totally freaking me out. I've never seen this before.

Posted by Floyd Justin Newton (Member # 1316) on 12-25-2003, 04:28 PM:

Kevin-
Good chance what you are seeing are the negative splices on the
'scope prints. Not too much you can do except bring the top &
bottom masking in and get new plates for scope.

Good luck

fjn

Posted by Ron Yost (Member # 1850) on 12-25-2003, 05:05 PM:

I just returned from watching Peter Pan and noticed the same thing. Annoying. Lotsa lab splices, too, but I didn't notice the CAP coding.

What was noticible, and very annoying, was the following: At the end of the last reel there were many occurences of something I've not seen before. First, the color goes very greenish, then there's a 'brrrt' sound and then the sound drops out completely. The green was all over the screen, very evenly, like a filter, not at all blotchy, like a chemical had splashed on the print. The sound and picture come back and a few seconds later it happens again, and I could swear the image motion actually 'froze' for a few frames during a couple of these instances. Is that possible??

Very, very strange! And, it happened about 7-8 times during the last five minutes or so of the show. The majority of this show was absolutely -gorgeous-, image and sound-wise!! The auditorium I was in has, I belive, Dolby Digital, not DTS.

Anyone else see it or know what could have caused it??

Ron Yost

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 12-25-2003, 05:13 PM:

Don't know if that is a scope print, but if it is, I agree with the others.

Also, the aperature plate might be run out just a little bit excessive. If so, time to cut a new aperature plate.

Posted by Bryan Fournier (Member # 264) on 12-26-2003, 03:14 AM:

Are they near the frame lines but in the picture area? If so, based on your description, they sound like emulsion scratches caused by the platter deck during make up and/or break down. Those type of scratches would appear to be green, horizontal and flashing.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 12-26-2003, 08:14 AM:

The "flashes" at the top or bottom are most likely negative splices. Ideally, the negative cutter for scope films should use a splicer with a narrower overlap, designed specifically so the splices are less likely to intrude into the scope image area.

An overall coloration to a section of the film may have been "safelight fogging", if that section of the unprocessed print had accidently been exposed to the orange-colored safelight too long.

Posted by Kevin Wale (Member # 1851) on 12-26-2003, 10:16 AM:

The wierd thing is that they are not lines like a scratch. They are thinner at the left and get wider and splotchy at the right. Maybe sometimes reversed. Of course sometimes at the top and sometimes at the bottom. I can't figure out what would cause that intermittantly on the makeup table. I didn't build it up so I can't say nothing odd happened. It very well could be.

Since other people have noticed it too however, John P's, Paul's, Floyd's opinions seem the most logical to me at this point.

I'll be watching to see if running it through the filmgaurd affects it any.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 12-26-2003, 12:17 PM:

If they are poorly made negative splices, they will always occur at scene changes. If they occur mid-scene, they are something else. Do you see any scratches on the print surface by looking at the film itself under a bright specular light?

Posted by Kevin Wale (Member # 1851) on 12-26-2003, 12:54 PM:

I'll have to look John. I was running up and down stairs doing management things combined with projectionist duties. I just looked in and saw it. I wasn't very happy to be sure.

Scene changes... not sure. I'll have to check that too. It seems like it was often when the camera would cut from one person to another and things like that. It seemed to disrupt the whole image even though the only visible part was the greenish lines.

Posted by Mark Huff (Member # 480) on 12-26-2003, 01:08 PM:

I have seen the same green lines on those prints.

Posted by Eric Hooper (Member # 1730) on 12-26-2003, 01:29 PM:

A theatre here in SF had those flashes at the bottom of the scope screen on EVERY movie they showed. The flash happened at every scene change. It was very annoying. Haven't seen the flashes in a while though, so I guess they fixed the problem. I almost demanded a refund a few times. Moulin Rouge and Down With Love were ruined!

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 12-26-2003, 02:55 PM:

quote:
It was very annoying. Haven't seen the flashes in a while though, so I guess they fixed the problem.

It should be pointed out,though, that negative splices will only appear if the scope print originated from a scope production. Scope prints from SUPER 35 origination won't show negative splices.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 12-26-2003, 08:34 PM:

Incorrect there will be negative splices in the printing negs
Often the material is scanned and anamoprhisised as distinct shots and then the printing negatives are assembled from that and as such neg splices will still flash if the apperture is oversized

Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 12-26-2003, 09:36 PM:

quote:
It seems like it was often when the camera would cut from one person to another and things like that.

That's what the above posts meant by scene change, it's where two seperate pieces of film were put together on the original print.

Before you go adjusting the masking and filing aperture plates:

TRY TO FRAME IT, it may jsut be framed a little low and you can bring it up a hair and you wont see it.

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 12-26-2003, 09:37 PM:

Negative (or IP) splices on Super 35 originated material will be few and far between. If you are seeing them at each scene/shot change then it's true anamorphic.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 12-28-2003, 01:18 PM:

Look at any bright light such as a headlight that has a halo around it; if the halo is a oval, then the orginating photography was true anamorphic. If the halos around bright lights are perfect circles, then it was filmed in Super 35mm. If the grain is as big as golf balls, that too points to Super 35mm. [Smile]

As mentioned, if it is a film shot in anamorphic, it will be much more susceptible to splice flashes at every shot change if the aperture plate is cut to the old 2.35:1 standard. However, a properly cut 2.39:1 plate should cover those splice flashes if the image is properly framed in the projector.

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 12-28-2003, 07:19 PM:

quote:
Often the material is scanned and anamoprhisised as distinct shots and then the printing negatives are assembled from that

I'm a little puzzled as to why they would do that. One of the reasons for shooting in SUPER 35 (not the only reason, to be sure) is to create a version that doesn't have to be panned and scanned. Editing in SUPER 35 format means only having to do the cutting once. If you edited only with anaomorphically converted footage, you would be stuck doing pan and scan from a lesser quality image, OR go back and re-edit the whole thing over again using the whole frame (which makes no sense, either economically or technically).

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 12-28-2003, 10:02 PM:

From what I have read about the subject of super 35 is that optical squeeze printing of the images is only done after the Negative has been finalized and aproved to make the release prints. That is one reason that you see everything on the heads and tails squeezed up.

Society of camera operators magazine

Taken from the above link. Very interesting how Super35 came about out of developing a process for Greystoke: The Legend of Tarzan of the Apes.

Super 35 release prints are made on modern, fine-grain film stocks by an updated version of the basic method used in SuperScope. First, a timed contact interpositive is made from the cut original negative. Second, a squeezed internegative is extracted.

Posted by Tom Wienholt (Member # 1510) on 12-28-2003, 11:04 PM:

I thought that this issue was taken care of by making the scope standard 2.39:1 instead of 2.35:1.

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 12-29-2003, 12:45 AM:

quote:
thought that this issue was taken care of by making the scope standard 2.39:1 instead of 2.35:1.

Yes, IF the theatre has followed SMPTE recommendations and IF the "projectionist" has bothered framing correctly.

Posted by Floyd Justin Newton (Member # 1316) on 12-29-2003, 12:13 PM:

Paul-

If you go into a theatre today and utter the word SMPTE you
would get a questionly look from the entire staff. Since
they don't hire 'projectionists" anymore, but rather kids
off the streets! At least that's the way it is in Sunny
Arizona.

fjn HAPPY NEW YEAR EVERYONE!

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 12-29-2003, 12:20 PM:

Floyd

It's the same thing here (that's why I put the "projectionist" in quotes. [Smile]

). As a matter of fact, I know of few theatres that actually follow this 2.39 stuff anyway. Yesterday I got a refund on LAST SAMURAI because the negative splices were showing, as well as part of the next frame in the left corner of the curved screen. And this theatre WILDLY overcrops on all four sides. Even though the shape of the screen is just about right (on one scop film, there were two lines of titles at the bottom to indicate a location...the first line was only half there and the bottom line completely missing). Which means it was WAY off. Strange. I seemed to be the only member of the packed house who even NOTICED it!

Posted by Floyd Justin Newton (Member # 1316) on 12-29-2003, 12:53 PM:

Paul--

That's usually the case. And THAT"S why I don't go to theatres
to see films anymore. I'll wait and see them on cable. It's
just not worth the aggravation (sic) and expense to go to a
theatre and be subjected to the shit that goes on today.

(End rant)
fjn

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 12-29-2003, 07:40 PM:

Talk about cropping. you wait for cable?

Posted by Nick Engstrom (Member # 2100) on 12-29-2003, 08:57 PM:

We are having some of the same problems with Peter Pan, as well as Paycheck. Just like was said earlier, it runs on the bottom of the frame, from left to right, getting smaller as it goes across, the only difference is that Paycheck issue was white instead of green.

Posted by Kevin Wale (Member # 1851) on 12-30-2003, 09:34 AM:

I've got to say that our plates could indeed be filed wrong. I just got here a couple of months ago and haven't seen the tech yet.

Even at that though, when these flashes happen, they do disrupt hte whole image. There is the visible lines, but there is also a visible flash over the whole thing.

Reel one is the worst but there are places in reel six that do it. Haven't noticed it in the other reels, but I don't really get to spend the time I need to in the booth while the movie is running. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Christopher Seo (Member # 7) on 12-30-2003, 11:41 AM:

Without having seen the movie(s) in question, I wonder if this could be similar to an issue I noticed previously: Topic: Colored/dark flashes at edit points in prints

As John P. explained, the light valves on lab printers can cause flashes as the color timing is changed from shot to shot.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 12-30-2003, 02:09 PM:

If you are seeing the negative splices no matter how your frame the image, you should definitely check your projected image area using the SMPTE 35-PA (RP40) test film. You should not show more than 0.690 inches of image height for "scope".

Posted by Will Kutler (Member # 770) on 12-31-2003, 04:12 AM:

One thing that no one has mentioned....

If you have horizontal green scratches that start at the bottom and progressively work towards the top, and then repeating this pattern, you might have some debris, like a tooth brush bristle (ussed for cleaning) stuck on the intermittent sprocket. Maybe something happened to the master print, or maybe when the release prints were being processed?

Posted by Christian Appelt (Member # 1067) on 12-31-2003, 09:25 AM:

quote:
I'm a little puzzled as to why they would do that. One of the reasons for shooting in SUPER 35 (not the only reason, to be sure) is to create a version that doesn't have to be panned and scanned.

Paul, I think Frank was not referring to pan-and-scan, but to the scanning (meaning digitizing) of the camera negative, then the squeeze is added digitally and the anamorphic picture is recorded onto 35mm film again.

The original Super-35 used anamorphic printing lenses to add the squeeze, but with the improvements in digital intermediates, some people feel they get better image quality using digital.

I have no personal experience with Super-35, but from the labs and cinemagraphers I heard that there are great differences in quality of the optical conversion done by different labs. On the other hand, most digital intermed processes seem to be done at 2K resolution, which is only a quarter of the resolution of the camera negative (scanning&recording at 4K= 4096 lines) would be more adequate.

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 12-31-2003, 11:34 AM:

I believe Peter Pan is a Super 35 film (despite the Filmed in Panavision credit which would normally denote an anamorphic film but is wrong more often than correct--Super 35, 1.85, or any non anamorphic film ought to simply have an equipment credit, not a process name). There is a credit for a digital intermediate. There are indeed plenty of negative splices but not on every scene change like on a true scope film. Apparently they did do a lot of assembly of individual shots after the digital blowup. Somewhat unusual. I suppose there is always a chance it really was anamorphic but it looked too grainy for that. True anamorphic via digital intermediate doesn't look as sharp as a normal straight print but would be sharper than this was.

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 12-31-2003, 12:49 PM:

quote:
Paul, I think Frank was not referring to pan-and-scan, but to the scanning (meaning digitizing)

Christian, I was actually quoting Gordon, not Frank. And I KNOW he wasn't referring to pan and scan. That was a reference I added to the discussion in terms of transfer to home video full screen versions. I do believe, in the context of the full discussion, however, he was referring to the process of taking part of the full apeture frame for cropping to scope and then squeezing it for theatrical release. I could be wrong, but I dont think he was referring to digitizing the image.

Posted by Christian Appelt (Member # 1067) on 12-31-2003, 01:01 PM:

Ooops, I jumped between pages and looked at Franks post above yours and got the names mixed up... [Embarrassed]

Now after reading Gordon's explanation again, I still think he means the process of scanning a 2.39 area out of the S-35 full frame and doing the squeeze digital instead of going trhough optical printing. Maybe Gordon could answer this?

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 12-31-2003, 01:15 PM:

In some cases a squeeze is introduced in the digital domain in others it is done opticaly
Alot depends on the proprietary system being used and that is often kept very secret

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 12-31-2003, 04:36 PM:

quote:
I believe Peter Pan is a Super 35 film

It sure looked anamorphic to me.

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 12-31-2003, 05:23 PM:

American Cinematographer covers PETER PAN in their January, 2004 magazine. Anyone have a copy to check if anamorphic or SUPER 35, or possibly both? (I think there have been "hybrids" before).

Posted by Dominic Case (Member # 1830) on 01-05-2004, 06:40 PM:

Peter Pan was shot by Don McAlpine in Panavision 2.40:1 using a Panaflex Millenium camera and Primo lenses. The film was shot in Queensland (Australia) and processed at Atlab. Digital effects were done by ILM and others, and then there was a digital intermediate grade at Efilm. If the film was assembled (neg-matched) prior to the digital grade, then there would be negative splices at normal cuts, but not in the middle of digital effects sequences.

Don explains his preference to shoot an anamorphic negative in American Cinematographer (Jan 04) or in Kodak's InCamera magazine online at

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/newsletters/inCamera/jan2004/peterpanP.shtml#p

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 01-05-2004, 11:31 PM:

Ah...interesting. Digital intermediate and 500 speed film.