quote:

---

Lots of scenes with boom mikes in them too!

---

quote:

---

The Boom mics are really low! Even the slightest missframe will reveal them.

---

Yet another reason NOT to shoot flat films! If a filmmaker just HAS to release in flat, they should hard matte the prints to prevent this sort of thing. We all pretty much agree that the industry has reached a low point in presentation. The filmmakers shooting flat should realize this and matte the prints to ensure this sort of nonsense does not happen.

General survey...in the "typical" megaplex ran by teenagers, what do you think the percentage is that understand when running a flat film that just because there is not a visible frame line in the image does not mean it is in frame?
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 12-25-2003, 08:36 PM:
 
Don't compromise hire reel projectionists that know how to frame
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 12-25-2003, 08:44 PM:
 
If you feel that your projectionists don't have a full appreciation of the importance of framing flat films for proper composition, you could always point out the mic boom in a film like "Honey" to make the point in a different way.

BTW Gordon I'm in full agreement with your post -- That's my new year's resolution for 2004.
 

---

Posted by Bryan Fournier (Member # 264) on 12-26-2003, 03:25 AM:
 
Assuming the flat plates are cut properly and lenses are of the correct size more frequent running of the RP-40 and framing to specs should reduce the problem.

Is it safe to assume most projectionists/operators do this? With the cost of RP-40 being somewhat expensive I'll bet there are some booths out there operating with out one frame of the stuff.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-26-2003, 01:52 PM:
 
RP-40 (or PA-35) is NOT properly centered vertically and should not be used to determine proper framing. It's fine for lens alignment and cutting plates, but when the job is done the framing control must be racked a little bit to achieve a proper centering job. This has been discussed before in the archives.
 

---

Posted by Bryan Fournier (Member # 264) on 12-26-2003, 04:36 PM:
 
I think using RP-40 (PA-35) as a reference when framing is an acceptable practice. When changing lenses in a constant width auditoria, after framing knob is used and when a feature presentation changes it can be useful.

I think the problems with boom mics entering the viewing area is caused mainly by improperly set masking (flat), overcut aperture plate (flat), use of framing knob one show and not reseting (with RP-40) for the next showing.

If RP-40 (PA-35) is not used, what are you using as a reference? The last flat picture? You say The RP-40 is not perfectly vertically centered. Maybe some adjustment is required, but I still feel it is usful as a starting point.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-26-2003, 04:38 PM:
 
Better to get a flat trailer that is "letterboxed" to scope and make a loop out of the green band. 99% of the time these are dead on perfectly centered and it's a disposable item, not one that costs mega $$$.
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 12-26-2003, 08:32 PM:
 
35PA is correct for the location of the frame lines in reference to the perferoration
One is compromising by using a trailer as it has been printed in a compromised form
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-26-2003, 10:28 PM:
 
Gordo, we've been over this before. One batch of SMPTE PA-35 always lines up with another batch of PA-35, but never ever does any PA-35 line up with what the labs are actually sending out.

(Now this is the paragraph you need to read carefully.) Of course, 99.9% of all matted mainstream trailers and features do magically match each other. Odd how that works, eh? Makes you wonder, are the billions of prints that all match up with each other correct, or is it that one test film that is correct?

So if you want to claim that the PA-35 film is accurate and every print out there is wrong, fine. I prefer to frame my presentations on what is correct for that print. Framing on the PA-35 when you are going to run one of these "incorrectly printed" films is stupid, for you will be running the show out of frame. Life can be tough that way.
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 12-26-2003, 10:35 PM:
 
I think John will be able to provide the exact dimensions but the 446 mark is specified in relation to the edge of a perf.
That is the guage to reference against
Printer slip will allow a slight shift from printer to printer which is why the hard matte is supposed to be larger than 446 high
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-26-2003, 10:52 PM:
 
"Printer slip" still = out of frame presentation.
 

---

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 12-27-2003, 12:13 AM:
 
Obviously one must deal with real world conditions when setting framing for actual showings but it seems pretty clear to me that the middle of the frame is supposed to be a point exactly between two perfs. So if the 35PA has that and the billions of prints don't then the test film is correct and the billions of prints are indeed "wrong" in the sense of being non-compliant with the standard. But the projectionist has to be "compliant" with the film being projected.

If the prints are all pretty much consistant with themselves and there is more afoot than just bi-directional printing then it would be interesting to get a lab guy to explain just what standard they are following. Maybe they line up to old green bands from other labs!
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-27-2003, 03:06 AM:
 
No not the 35-PA/RP40 framing issue again! Do not frame using that test film as your guide. I once centered ALL of the framing knobs in our 16 screen complex (this was many years ago) and locked the knobs down. All was well. One morning our tech came in (John) and I told him what I did. He asked if I used RP40 to do the centering. I said "no". He wanted to show me how to do it properly, so he asked that I unlock one of the projectors. He threaded up the RP40 (or I did, doesn't matter) and he centered to that image and told me to lock it back down and I did. That very day we started getting complaints about the image being off center vertically. I switched it back the nest day and the complaints stopped.
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 12-27-2003, 07:42 AM:
 

quote:

---

Better to get a flat trailer that is "letterboxed" to scope and make a loop out of the green band. 99% of the time these are dead on perfectly centered and it's a disposable item, not one that costs mega $$$.

---

This is exactly how I do it. 35-PA may be perfectly framed but, in my experience, it has never ever lined up with an actual print.

It's silly to insist on setting framing with that film. I guarantee that it will lead to "film done wrong."
 

---

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 12-27-2003, 09:19 AM:
 
Oh there's little doubt there is a disagreement noticeable on tightly matted films and one may presume the rest are wrong too and we just don't notice it. The question is why. Would it matter if 35PA was printed on KS perfed stock? I don't think we have a lab guy here but maybe if I bring this up on r.a.m.t. someone will answer.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-27-2003, 01:57 PM:
 
Steve (as posted on RAMT)...try comparing 35-PA to 35-IQ...the Magenta stock is taken on the same camera but it has KS-1870 perforations. Also look at Schneider's CLT test film.

Steve
 

---

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 12-28-2003, 05:10 AM:
 
could it be that the hard mattes themselves are printed a little out of frame, but the image itself is perfectly framed (using 35-PA as reference)? my understanding is that the mattes are step-printed onto the internegs, where the matte is bipacked with the interpositive, which contacts the internegative stock. maybe some slippage of the matte occurs due to the extra thickness? i'm not familiar with step printers (or lab printing in general) so slap me if this is implausible.

just because you see a boom mike doesn't necessarily mean your framing is off. that stuff happens sometimes. but if you see a matte on a green band, say, and it's not centered, you will then see any awkward-looking shot after that as confirmation of poor framing, and might even ignore a shot that looks off in the other direction, because of perceptional bias. maybe the whole film looks perfect compositionally but because the matte looked off, you "know" it's wrong. just a hypothesis.

what percentage difference is there between 35-PA and mattes in the real world? this is the first i've heard of there being a difference, and i've never noticed it when i've framed with 35-PA and then looked at "letterboxed" green bands.

what i have noticed is bad windowboxing on trailers. big fish is a recent example. i'll see that and want to tweak the lens in one direction or the other, but really it's just printed that way (yes, i looked at it on the bench).

carl
 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 12-28-2003, 11:56 AM:
 
My understanding, and this is from what I remember of the SMPTE standard on spherical cropped wide screen (John P. can probably verify this), is that prints shouldn't be hard matted at 1.85 in the first place, but should only be cropped down to 1.66 if they are following the SMPTE standards. So even if the vertical framing was off slightly, it certainly wouldn't be that far off that mics could be seen, would it? Besides, don't they now keep mics and set gack all the way out to the TV safe area so they can easily make so-called "full screen" versions for DVD and VHS?

Anyway, Carl's theory seems quite plausable, even probable: could it be that the hard mattes themselves are printed a little out of frame, but the image itself is perfectly framed (using 35-PA as reference)? . Again, the matte shouldn't be a tight 1.85 but only 1.66. So even if the hard matte were slightly off-center, mics and set junk shouldn't be anywhere near the 1.85 edge. Me thinks that projector was alot further off center than the projectionist assumed.
 

---

Posted by Josh Jones (Member # 447) on 12-29-2003, 02:43 AM:
 
My God you guys, give it a rest...

JJ
 

---

Posted by Tom Wienholt (Member # 1510) on 12-29-2003, 10:57 AM:
 
How about making all prints in scope and just matting off the sides for flat.
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 12-29-2003, 11:01 AM:
 
Matted, open-frame, flat, scope -- doesn't matter: If you use 35PA your show will appear to be slightly out of frame.

The other formats would not be affected if this was an issue with the matte.
 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 12-29-2003, 11:11 AM:
 
Hmmm, Josh is uncharacteristically testy this morning.
 

---

Posted by Josh Jones (Member # 447) on 12-29-2003, 09:16 PM:
 
There are reasons we have a search function. All of the other forums I am on encourage search before posting. I just get bored over hearing the S.O.S. yah know what I mean?

JJ
 

---

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 12-29-2003, 09:35 PM:
 
Umm, Josh, this thread is attempting to actually answer the question of why this discrepancy exists. I don't think any previous threads have done that.

Somebody's going to go measure 35PA, 35IQ, the Schneider film, and some trailers under a microscope and get back to us, right (per r.a.m.t.)? I don't have any 35IQ handy, nor a measuring microscope, but I could probably scare one up easily if no one else can.

Edit: I do have a film scanner, so I guess that's good enough for this purpose. If no one else with proper tools pipes up, I guess I can measure 35PA and trailers with it (but not 35IQ or Schneider).

--jhawk
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 12-29-2003, 10:18 PM:
 
Might be the same topic but it *does* seem to be going in a different direction.

I suppose it could/should have been included as a continuation of one of the older threads...but, hey...

Even so, you could just ignore the thread if it bugs you, right?
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 12-29-2003, 11:37 PM:
 
Yah know I never have had an issue framing with 35PA (call it by its right name) for scope nor in fact in 90% of the 1.85:1 prints either
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 12-30-2003, 12:54 AM:
 
I'll double-check the scope thing -- I have to go into one of the theatres tomorrow. Somehow, I recall flat AND scope pictures both being out-of-frame if 35PA was used to centre the intermittent.

I will report my findings here. Stay tuned.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-30-2003, 03:06 AM:
 
I'll try and scan a few frames of 35PA and a few trailers over the next couple of days in extra-high resolution and post them for those who want to analyze it.
 

---

Posted by Gary Crawford (Member # 2038) on 12-30-2003, 02:17 PM:
 
I've used Brad's idea of using a letterbox flat trailer turned into a loop to center my image. I also have some dailies "please focus" loops that have targets and lines and all kinds of test images on them, similar to the target loops you mention.

I have to do this every time we go from flat to scope and back, including a minor re-aiming of the machines (hey, we're a 1925 house) so when I hit with a new show everything is in frame, in focus, etc. Since the minor miracle of scope trailers (wish we had them back in the old days) we never have a format change during a run.
 

---

Posted by David Whitbeck (Member # 894) on 12-30-2003, 08:28 PM:
 
This whole thread reminds me of Bring It On, the very beginning where she comes up from her cheer and she's supposed to be naked but if you framed it wrong you could see that she was wearing a towel... Just reminded me of that.
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 12-31-2003, 10:07 AM:
 
Standard SMPTE 195 specifies the projectable image area of 35mm prints. The horizontal centerline of the "intended image area" is defined as exactly between two perforations (Dimension J=K, "nominally equal"). Secondarily, the top and bottom of the image should be approximately the same distance above/below the top and bottom perf of the frame (Dimension F=H, "within 0.012 inches, within 0.30 millimeters").

The SMPTE 35-PA test film is specified by SMPTE Recommended Practice RP 40, which says:

quote:

---

4.10 Location on film and tolerances
The center of the test image shall be within ± 0.001 in
(0.03 mm) of the center of the projectable image area
specified in ANSI/SMPTE 195. All projectable image
area lines shall be within ± 0.002 in (0.05 mm) of the
nominal dimensions shown on the test image.

---

In other words, the horizontal centerline of any 35mm frame AND of the SMPTE 35-PA test film should be exactly between two perforations, within ± 0.001 inches (0.03 mm). IF the SMPTE standards are being followed, framing using SMPTE 35-PA should provide the proper framing of any print.
 

---

Posted by John A. Parker Jr. (Member # 1719) on 01-03-2004, 07:47 PM:
 
Ok, this is easy if you let it be. Just frame "this preview
has been approved by" well you know the rest, dead in the
center of the screen. It works for me every time and it's
easy as it is the first thing that comes up on the screen.
Have fun
John A. Parker Jr.
 

---

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 01-03-2004, 11:24 PM:
 
Oh, another choice would be for us to take a page from Steve K.'s book, and bipack some RP40 with some trailer green and see what we get. Might be fun .

--jhawk
 

---

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 01-03-2004, 11:50 PM:
 
That sounds nice, but thanks to our company for not letting us keep the green screens. Either way, I don't usually have trouble framing. Sure, I misframe at starts every so often (or on poorly setup projectors) but I make sure framing is perfect for the film. It takes trial and error sometimes, but I usually get it perfect. For flat films, a good trick to get it right is when there is a trailer that is letterboxed on the preshow. Just center that and you're usually in business for the feature. Of course, some films just have tight framing and you sometimes have to make a compromise.

AJG
 

---

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 06-07-2004, 07:28 PM:
 
Boy, it's been a while. I went and measured some green band, I will measure some RP40 next.

I took the green band from a flat trailer for Cold Mountain, printed at Deluxe Hollywood, and scanned it on a film scanner.

The origin is at the upper left of the image.

I drew a box around the top perfs, and its coordinates are: (207,272), (1159,727), (208,789), (1160,790).

I drew a box around the bottom perfs, and its coordiantes are: (204,1176), (1158,1177), (206,1237), (1155,1238).

The green band area was defined by: (385,718), (1069,718), (381,1242), (1066,1244).

Top perf centerline: 759 pixels.
Bottom perf centerline: 1207 pixels.

Green band centerline: 1515.5 pixels
Green band height: 525 pixels

Perf-defined centerline: 1505.5 pixels
Perf-defined frame height: 448 pixels

Centerline offset: 10 pixels (low)

Converting to inches:

448 pixels / 3*0.1870" => 798.574 pixels/inch

green band frame height: 0.6574"
Centerline offset: 0.0125"



A 1.85:1 frame is .446" tall, so this green band is centered 2.8% off.

I'll try to do RP40 later this week.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 06-07-2004, 09:25 PM:
 
Not a good test John. You could've picked a random frame from that trailer's green band where the bounce was at one extreme or another. We all know how Deluxe prints like to bob up and down.

Get a "scope letterboxed" trailer printed at Technicolor, preferably something from Buena Vista, as they are usually excellent about their green bands and measure off of that, then compare against PA35. I'm very interested to see what you turn up with.

(If you want to email me high rez images, I will upload them to the server directly, then they can be linked to from the forum.)
 

---

Posted by Wolff King Morrow (Member # 2226) on 06-07-2004, 11:57 PM:
 
Edit:

Nevermind. I'd prefer to send Brad a PM on this. Sorry for the post.
 

---

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 06-15-2004, 09:18 PM:
 
Brad: this is not intended to be end-all and be-all, it's merely a sample. But I will do a letterboxed trailer the next time I do one. Somebody send me a Harold and Kumar cyan trailer, please, also (email me for address).

I don't think hi rez images are necessary...the images are just a rough guide to what I did, to help people visualize the numbers.

Anyhow, here's a frame of SMPTE PA-35 (RP40).
This time I did centerlines through the perfs visually to make the diagram a bit more helpful.

The top perf area corners are: (470, 983), (1425,1046)
The bototm perf area corners are: (470,1429), (1425,1492)

Top perf centerline: 1018 pixels
Bottom perf centerline: 1464 pixels

RP40 centerline: 1237 pixels

Perf-defined centerline: 1241 pixels
Perf-defined frame height: 446 pixels

Centerline offset: 4 pixels (high)

Converting to inches:

446 pixels / 3*0.1870" => 795.009 pixels/inch

Centerline offset: 0.005"



A 1.85:1 frame is still .0.446" tall, so this RP40 frame is centered 1.1% off. And at 5 thou., I would say we're getting in the noise of the resolution I scanned at (800dpi), etc. (Also, there is some skew in the image, because I don't have the tech to register against the perfs in the film scanner and still scan the perfs themselves. So the film is taped down on the scanner. I averaged the y values so I don't believe the skew should represent a problem...it just looks funny.)

So, umm, where's the problem? Everything looks good. The Deluxe green band seems to be on-center, as is the RP40.

Did I measure centering of the green band wrong? Note that I measured the top edge and the bottom edge and took the average. Should I instead measure the top and bottom edge of the text and average that?

Or is my TES green band somehow different from the ones that exhibit the problem?

--jhawk
 

---

Posted by Dan Lyons (Member # 1454) on 06-15-2004, 09:42 PM:
 
Where is that from? That looks nothing the Pa-35<rp40> that i use.

danny
 

---

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 06-15-2004, 09:58 PM:
 
What does yours look like? The RP40 standard specifies that image, so I don't know what else you might have. Do you have color, perhaps 35IQ?

This is what it is from:


sorry, no date on the can.

--jhawk
 

---

Posted by Craig Kocher (Member # 2432) on 06-15-2004, 11:18 PM:
 
I suppose I have it pretty easy since my Company Insists that the Green Band stays on the trailer, company policy. Just frame to the middle and were set. Still, I always look once the picture begins to see if were in Frame so to speak. Stupid Flat Films, I wish everything was in scope.
 

---

Posted by Christopher Seo (Member # 7) on 06-16-2004, 01:24 AM:
 
Danny, I think that's an older version of 35-PA. The current SMPTE RP40 has the image that you're used to.

John, is that 35-PA acetate or polyester base? I would assume you're using polyester for the most accurate measurements.
 

---

Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 06-16-2004, 01:27 AM:
 

quote: Dan Lyons

---

That looks nothing the Pa-35<rp40> that i use.

---

That's the old-timey RP40 from back in Ed Jurich & W.K.L. Dickson's day.



The new kind says 35PA on it, & has adjustable air shocks & a speaker under the hood that makes a sound like a turbo whine



You can also tell by that's one of the old cans. The new SMPTE 35PA RP40 cans have Hanna-Barbera cartoon characters on them like Scooby Doo & the Jetsons.
 

---

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 06-16-2004, 01:32 AM:
 
It's acetate, Chris. Shrinkage shouldn't matter, though, we assume that is uniform and the measurement is registered off the pins.

Wow, I had no idea there was an RP40 rev. I guess what's you get for living in your own little world... funny how all the other RP40 I've seen looks like that, too, though...

--jhawk
 

---

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 06-16-2004, 02:39 AM:
 

quote: John Pytlak

---

IF the SMPTE standards are being followed, framing using SMPTE 35-PA should provide the proper framing of any print.

---

That's a big 'if' John, especially when dealing with subtitled foreign language films, probably about half of all the films I show.

To start with, there's usually no indication on cans or leaders of the intended aspect ratio, you just have to use your best judgement. There usually isn't time to run the print before the show, the best you can hope for is to run the first few minutes.

Secondly, the framing isn't always constant from reel to reel, it's necessary to check, and sometimes adjust slightly after a reel splice or a changeover.

Thirdly, whoever did the subtitling doesn't always pay any attention to how the film was framed. You can look at a print, decide that it's intended to be, say, 1.66. There's no obvious unintended cropping of the image, nor inclusion of anything that shouldn't be there, and the subtitles are nicely positioned on the screen; perfect. Suddenly, at some point during the film, the subtitles will be printed lower in the frame, and will be cropped, or you realiise that your assessment of the intended aspect ratio was probably wrong, and it should have been not 1.66, but 1.85 after all, or vica versa.

I've even seen subtitles printed very low on the frame, over image which clearly isn't intended to be seen. In those circumstances, you can't win.

I think the best way to subtithe a widescreen print would be to have the picture hard-matted to the intended ratio, print the subtitles in the bottom margin, outside the picture area, use an Academy plate, or better still, a special one with the top edge cut to the Academy position to accomodate the subtitles, and the bottom edge correct for the picture ratio, and drop the top masking if possible. I've never seen a print made this way, I suppose it would have to be specially made, which would mean expensive, but it could be run as a normal print, without the subtitles, by simply using a normal plate.

I have seen letterbox laserdiscs subtitled in this way.
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 06-16-2004, 03:57 AM:
 
In most cinemas this would mean an unacceptably tiny picture for my liking. Just because we like to watch foreign films, why should we put up with a smaller image?

What this really says to me is that (i) ALL release prints, not just foreign language ones, should have the intended aspect ratio clearly written on the head leader attached to the camera negative, thereby ensuring that this information is printed through onto every release print without fail, and (ii) for subtitling companies to observe the relevant standards when typesetting the text. This doesn't need any new standards, just the consistent implementation of existing ones.
 

---

Posted by Hugh McCullough (Member # 1542) on 06-16-2004, 05:11 AM:
 
Leo, your idea of printing the aspect ratio on the leader was mentioned to Technicolor by the producer of the film 'The Wild Geese' way back in the 1970s.
The answer he got was "Well, we do print scope on the leader.
His reply " The projectionist can see if the ratio is scope, but can not always tell what the flat ratio is."
A good idea that we are still waiting to be implemented.
 

---

Posted by Marja Jarvio-Jolivet (Member # 2483) on 06-17-2004, 06:24 AM:
 
I am quite surprised to hear that the aspect ratio apparently wouldn't be mentioned on the cans. In France it always is. If the original distributor doesn’t print it on, the local one puts their sticker on it. (The only time I had a surprise was with "Habla con ella" d'Almodovar: on the cans it was said to be 1.85 and when I built it up it was 2.35... Luckily enough the difference is obvious). It would be really welcome to have it always printed on the leader too however.

Another strange manner in America (and even in Finland, where I work now) is just to mention that the film is flat or scope. Anybody can see that difference on the first glance. In France it’s always shown with the exact term (2.35, 1.85, 1.75, 1.66, 1.37…) and you can prepare the proper optics before the first performance.

I have noticed that a difference between European and American flat films seems to be that European films are hard matted (hope I understood right the word "matt" meaning that only the wanted area can be seen and the rest being black?) and in American ones the whole frame is filled with the picture. However, if the framing is right in the middle, in what I have experienced, the mics and other not wanted stuff stay out of sight.
Please, don’t blame the flat films too much, for many types of direction it is a most suitable way of shooting in my opinion. And also it’s too often that a scope film just can’t be well focused the shooting not being done well enough.

What comes to the subtitles, in Finland where at least 90% of films are foreign (and subtitled), they are very accurate in their position. No bad surprises having the text cropped at any moment once the framing has been determined. The text laboratories (or how do you say it?) must have established a good system. The only bad thing about subtitles is that their focus isn’t always exactly the same as in the picture itself. Operator has to often choose between a bit blurred subtitles or a bit blurred image. I prefer to choose a sharp image, but too many spectators complain then that the movie is blurred. Will I manage to re-educate the Finnish public? But that would be another topic:
“Can we ever re-educate them?”

I wouldn’t trust any definitive framing; there are too many differences on the copies, even in some 2.35. Still the best assurance of correct framing is an operator knowing his job!
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 06-17-2004, 08:03 AM:
 
Presumably the subtitling industry in Finland is a big enough business that they're doing it all the time and therefore make sure they get it right. If you had thousands of cinemagoers mieowing and hissing every time subtitles were printed outside the projected frame area (as distinct from a few hundred arthouse buffs), I can imagine that the cock-ups would stop pretty quickly.

I would further speculate the French are more careful about aspect ratios because, unlike in the UK and USA, 1.1.85 is not the universal 'flat' standard, and that therefore it is acknowledged that projectionists need to be told what the intended aspect ratio is.

The problem here is that because 1:1.85 is a universal standard, anything which doesn't conform to it has a hard time being shown correctly. Many venues simply don't have the lenses and plates for 1:1.75, 1:1.66 or Academy; so much so that the rare mass-rereleases of an older title are even sometimes 'windowboxed', i.e. optically reduced to fit inside the height of a 1:1.85 mask. Throwing away over two thirds of the frame area seems stupid, but I suppose that compared to cropping the projected image, it's the lesser of two evils.

But even when the right lens and plate is available, quite often the projectionists here don't know when to use it; especially when you get someone who trained in a multiplex environment who then moves on to a venue with more diverse programming. If producers and distributors were more careful about marking the aspect ratio on each reel of release print (and if this was written directly onto the leader of each reel of cut camera negative, the information would find its way onto every print without fail, meaning that the distributor wouldn't have to worry about labelling up the cans), this would at least start to address that problem.
 

---

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 06-20-2004, 05:45 AM:
 
leo wrote:

quote: Leo Enticknap

---

Throwing away over two thirds of the frame area seems stupid, but I suppose that compared to cropping the projected image, it's the lesser of two evils.

---

Then there was the alternative of releasing an anamorphic print, with the Academy image windowboxed within it, as was done with most prints of the last release of 'Gone with the Wind'.

I ran 'The Station Agent' yesterday, and found this taped to the projection box wall:



We ran the same film last month, and I didn't see the same instructions then, whether they just got lost before the priint got got to us, I don't know.

'Playing' a film isn't a phrase you often hear over here; that, and the use of the hash sign for 'number', suggests that these instructions were circulated in the U.S. as well. Did anybody else get them, and has anything similar been issued with other films? I haven't seen it before. At least we do know for certain what ratio to project this film in, the bottom picture is almost exactly 1.85, the top one about 1.88.

A couple of things about these instructions seem rather odd:

Firstly, why do they specify 30 seconds? If you are going to adjust the framing to match the reference frames then you have to do it while those shots are on screen. Why speciify a time?

Secondly, we are told to adjust the framing to match the first reference frame, then we are instructed to project this much or more headroom. Well, which is it, 'this much' or 'more'? how much more? Should we come down all the way until the top of the printed frame is visible?

Then we are told that two shots later the character's shoes may touch the bottom af the screen, but not disappear. Since we have already been told to set the frame with as much headroom as possible, the effect of these two instructions seems to be that the shoes should be at the bottom edge of the screen, no higher, and no lower. Why not just give this one instruction, forget about the first one, and the 30 second timing, both of which are unnecessary. Why move the framing twice, when all that is required is to move it once, to the correct position, and then leave it there?

What is the strange object that can be seen at the left hand side of both of these pictures, the thing that looks like the roof of a small building at ground level.

Where were the locations for this film? I've used NJ Transit between Newark Penn Station and Trenton, and between Hoboken Terminal and Suffern, New York, but I don't think either of these lines was used.

Newfoundland yard, is mentioned in the credirs, as is the bar, something lane, so I assume that these are real, but Newfoundland doesn't seem to appear on the NJ Transit map.

There's a great line near the start of the film, where a group of trainspotter types is sitting in a room, watching 8mm films of trains in Canada. A character with a rather boring voice is narrating his film, in which the train goes into a tunnel, and total blackness. 'This is one of the darker tunnels in Canada', he remarks.

Edited to correct typing errors.

The bar was the 'Mill Lane Tavern'.

[ 06-24-2004, 04:38 AM: Message edited by: Stephen Furley ]
 

---

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 06-20-2004, 12:13 PM:
 
The time is important so the projectionist knows the scenes are in the first 30 seconds, rather than figuring, "I'm not going to watch this movie for a half an hour to find the these shots" and disregarding the instructions completely, or where it might be missed if the projectionist goes to start another show at a similar time.

So does anyone have an 1995 RP40 to measure?

--jhawk
 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 06-23-2004, 05:01 PM:
 
So was this film actually composed for a 1.85 crop? I don't understand....if the picture has "tight" frame composition, why didn't Miramax just hard matte the release print at 1.85 and be done with it? If the composed image center is not the actual frame center (a cinematographer error?), then make the adjustment in the hard matte to correctly position it for the composed image center. The projectionist would then only have to center the hard matte as soon as the first frames hit the screen -- no mistaking it at all.

The SMPTE recommended practice is NOT to print a hard matte down to 1.85 so as to have a margin of safety for theatres that might not be hitting 1.85 exactly on the money. But if the film was not composed correctly and a hard matte will ensure that it be projected the way the filmmaker intended, then if matte lines show in theatres not correctly lensed, so be it.

Or perhaps this print was actually composed at 1.66; if the were the case, then it could be projected at 1.66 without any composition problems at all. Problem solved.

Miramax has been know to claim a picture is 1.85 only because that's what the desk guys are familiar with and because that is where they stick the subtitles, ignoring the fact that the IMAGE, not the subtitles, was composed for 1.66 (CINEMA PARADISO, for example). So it wouldn't surprise me if this film was also composed for 1.66 and all that nonsense about off-center adjusting is only valid if it is being forced to play incorrectly at 1.85. Play it at 1.66 and I bet this issue disappears.

Given the gobbledegook instructions, I wouldn't put any bets on the paper-pushers at Miramax to know what they are doing with regard to proper framing.
 

---

Posted by Antonio Marcheselli (Member # 373) on 06-23-2004, 06:25 PM:
 
Hi everyone

I adjusted all of my projectors with Rp40 and all the time I wonder why many of my movie and adv and trailers are slight out of frame...

As John said it is odd that the majority of the prints are all printed the same but NOT followinf the Rp40 specs.

I visually compared a frame of RP40 with a letterboxed frame of Spiderman 2 last day. I found that the perforation of the trailer are just smaller than the rp40 ones. This can explain the slight difference. Was just a bad trailer or what?

It is not the best for me, however, to align a projector using a loop of advertising of our national Telephone company...

Bye
A
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 06-23-2004, 06:45 PM:
 
The perferations on the 35PA test film is Bell and Howell standard and the trailors (and release prints) are KS (kodak standard)
 

---

Posted by Ron Yost (Member # 1850) on 06-23-2004, 10:45 PM:
 
Regarding "The Station Agent" a.r.: (Frank's right.)

I played the Region-1 DVD on my computer and measured the rectangle. It's near 1.66:1 .. actually about 1.70:1 on my machine, but my monitor isn't perfectly calibrated, so I'd say 1.66 would be truthful, with a little wiggle-room. It's certainly -not- 1.85:1, as the DVD insert says. The headroom is, indeed, very tight (to non-existant) on many shots.

The DVD has a thin, black 'hard matte' at both the top and bottom of the frame (which I didn't count in my measurement). Not sure if that means anything, tho. Is the film hard-matted?

Great film, IMHO. Hard to believe it was shot on 16mm as the image is very nice.

Oh .. the credits say the railroad is The New York, Susquehanna and Western Railway Corporation.

Ron Yost
 

---

Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 06-24-2004, 01:24 AM:
 
I'll bet that Frank Angel has moved in on what's happening.

The IMDB says that Station Agent was originated on 16mm, so it's likely to have been composed taller than 1.85.

If it was composed for 1.66, when it went to US houses, it would be assumed that they would be running flat in 1.85. So they looked at the picture in 1.85, got some landmarks for the framing that was least offensive to them, & put the info sheet together describing the appropriate framing.
 

---

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 06-24-2004, 02:59 AM:
 
Since making my previous post, I've had another look at this film. I normally believe in runniing a film as instructed, where instructiions are given, but in this case, I just wasn't able to do so. If I set the headroom to the minimum shown on the first picture, then the shoes were cropped on shot 7. Since the ratio of the reference frames shown on the sheet is almost exactly 1.85, this suggests that our 1.85 plates may be slightly undercut, but I haven't checked them, so I can't be sure. I found that I had to adjust the framing at several points during the first show on Sunday. I hadn't done this on Saturday, as I was too busy making up another print, (my disaster one), to stand by the projectors throughout the show. For the second, and last, show that day I ignored the instructions, and ran it at 1.66, which looked much better. At least some of the shots were hard-matted to slightly wider than 1.66, but I only had to drop the top masking by a few inches. Shown this way, it looked fine. If anybody else is running this, and is able to do so, I recommend that they ignore the instructions from Miramax, and run it at 1.66. It looks much better that way.

I am pretty sure that this film wasn't intended to be run at 1.85. Given that it is a U.S. production, it seems less likely that it was intended to be 1.66. Could it be that this film was originally intended for television or video release only, with the theatrical release coming as an afterthought, and it was composed for 16:9? Was it shot on Super-16? If so, what is the aspect ratio of this format?

If this is the case, then on one of the few occasions where we are given instructions on how to project a film, they are wrong. What they should have said is:

"This film is intended to be shown at an aspect ratio of (whatever it should have been), and should be shown that way if possible. If you are unable to project the film at this ratio then you should project it at 1:1.85, and adjust the framing during shot 7 so that the character's shoes just touch the bottom edge of the screen, as shown below"

(Insert the second picture from the printed instructions)

(edited, because during the original typing I pasted a paragraph in the wrong place, and it didn't make sense. Also extra text added.)

[ 06-24-2004, 04:58 AM: Message edited by: Stephen Furley ]
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 06-25-2004, 09:52 AM:
 
Members of the SMPTE Projection Technology Committee have lobbied for the 35-PA film to be printed on film with the KS-1870 perforations normally used for prints, but the current pin-registered printer used to print the test film is designed for BH-1866 perforations. Right now, SMPTE Recommended Practice specifies that BH-1866 or BH-1870 perforations be used:

quote:

---

The test film described in this practice shall be produced on 35-mm motion-picture film manufactured in
accordance with ANSI/SMPTE 93. A perforation pitch of 0.1866 in (4.74 mm) or 0.1870 in (4.75 mm) is acceptable.

---