quote:

---

Despite what some people will tell you, nobody will notice a frameline cue and it may solve your problem.

---

Oh Manny, I'm ashamed to know you now! ANY cue that is placed in the picture area of the film is visible on scope movies, and many are visible on flat movies too. The designers of automations/cue detectors that use center cues should be taken out back and shot. There is simply no need for that nonsense.
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 02-20-2004, 09:50 AM:
 
Aaron: You're right. I've seen those. They suck. They truly, truly suck and I hate hate hate getting a print with those.

Brad: I think you're just being too picky. We're talking about 1/24 of a second along the frameline. In most real-world cases, I'm willing to bet that the scope ratio is a bit tighter than 2.39:1 anyway. Customers don't really "see" those cues. They're too busy trying to beat everybody to the exit.
 

---

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 02-20-2004, 11:21 AM:
 
I use the center cue in my FM-35 but it's only the tail cue at the end of the feature.

I use the "001" cue for lights down when the feature starts and the "100" cue for lights up at the credits. The "010" cue comes at the end.

If you hide it in the black film it's hardly visible. Second, since it's at the end of the program it doesn't matter.

I suppose I could use the "101" cue but I'm too lazy to cue two pieces of tape for one cue.
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 02-20-2004, 01:07 PM:
 
With the fabulous CA21 automation, the cues are "one size fits all." Any cue will trigger the next step in the program. That is, if you connect all three sensors from the FM35.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 02-20-2004, 01:39 PM:
 
Randy's got the right idea here. When forced to deal with a 3 cue system, my preference is to put the feature cue in the center. That way it is hidden on a piece of opaque film just before the feature. However Randy's idea is a good close second. Yet for some reason it seems everyone likes to use the center cue at the beginning of the end credits.

Manny, why would anyone want to deal with 3 seperate cues with the mighty CA21? One that repeats on the inboard is fine and dandy.
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 02-20-2004, 01:44 PM:
 
Whoever set up the TA-10/FM-35 setup at the 6-plex was smart. Light cues and end of show cues use the edges of the film. Only sound cues (which are always placed on black leader/mag film) use the center position.

As an audience members, I always dread the fadeout after the final scene before the credits start, as it is usually accompanied by a big black blob on screen (the automation cue). It's tacky and annoying and ruins the final moment of most films for me. This is a common sight even in manual houses, since few operators bother to remove the cues.
 

---

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 02-20-2004, 01:55 PM:
 
I think the idea of using a center cue at the credits is translated (badly) from the concept of the "cross cue".

On a contact style cue reader the inboard and outboard cues had functions and the third, cross cue shorted the two contacts together to acheve the third function.

When the 3-cue readers came along, the people who installed them and set them up so that the center cue had the same function as the old cross cue.

BTW: The FM-35 will read an amazingly small patch of foil if it needs to. Personally, I specify that cues be 3 or 4 sprocket holes long. I know it's overkill but I'd rather err on the side of reliability. A larger cue has a better chance of getting picked up if it's slightly out of position. My cues are set up for least visibility just to give me the luxury of being able to have larger cues and increased reliability in reading them.
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 02-20-2004, 04:06 PM:
 
I connect all 3 of the FM35 sensors because you never know who's going to operate the equipment in the future. If somebody came along with the edge cues, they'd be fine. If someone came along and wanted centre cues, those would work also.

I've seen those little edge cues fall off; I don't feel comfortable with them. And I hate those multi-sprocket fold-over-the-edge cues. Some "contact" sensors need them but the FM35 does not.

I use the cross cue because I feel more secure that those cues stay in place; I've never lost one. All of my cues are cross cues on a frame line. If the movie is flat there is no way you will ever see it. If the movie is scope, you probably still won't see it because all of these scope images are slightly cropped. This cue tape is really skinny.

I don't see any point in changing my technique if it won't really improve anything. I'm certainly not about to change just to improve somebody's perception of my projection aesthetics and skills.
 

---

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 02-20-2004, 06:49 PM:
 
i think i would prefer a center cue at the start of the credits rather than the end. why? because as the image (usually) cuts or fades to black, there's a split second before one's eyes adjust enough to distinguish between two levels of black. of course, it still needs to be on a frameline.

but i really don't like center-only cues at all. you can't feel them on inspection, and they can be hard to peel without nicking the emulsion. i'd rather use inboard+mid or outboard+mid. in addition to avoiding those two issues, it's easier center on the frameline and thus often less visible than a center-only cue.

carl
 

---

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 02-20-2004, 10:51 PM:
 
I don't like any cue I can see or detect (by focus or sideways shift). Sadly, that applies to almost all of them.

Cue the automation, fine...but don't cue me in the audience that the lights are about to come up.
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 02-20-2004, 10:57 PM:
 
So Steve...how do you feel about cue dots?

I hate seeing those. They remind me that 20mins have passed. I don't like knowing exactly how far I am into the movie, or how near to the end I am.

Cue dots take me out of the experience by making me mindful of the mechanics of the presentation.

I think that we -- as showmen -- have to resign ourselves to the fact that there are a host of things that will get in the way of our absolute enjoyment of a moviegoing experience. I actually stopped going to the movies for a while because I felt that I was ONLY seeing the mistakes. The average person tolerates these things quite well because, for them, these things don't signify anything.

I've talked to several friends about CAP Code and none of them have "seen" it yet. None of my friends ever noticed cue dots until I pointed them out. Now they see them everytime (and wish I had never mentioned them).

I don't care how carefully a print is assembled for a platter showing -- I will see the splices. So in those cases, I'm bothered by cue dots *and* the reel join.

That's life. We're doomed. That's all there is to it.
 

---

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 02-21-2004, 01:35 AM:
 
There are ways to run changeovers without on-screen dots. But besides alternative ways to alert the operator I'd love it if each reel had a precise length in feet and frames marked upon it and there was an automation into which this information could be entered for a perfect reel change right down to the last frame.

But speaking more generally I suppose as a viewer I accept C/O cues as simply part of the presentation largely because it's been done that way for a century. If it was something new I suppose I would take offense. Automation cues going by onscreen are a (relatively) new detriment to the viewing experience.
 

---

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 02-21-2004, 04:43 AM:
 
manny (or anyone), would you see a well-made splice if there were no c/o cues? probably only if you looked damn hard and didn't happen to blink, and it happened on a relatively bright shot. they're so easy for us folks to see normally because we know to expect them a second after the second cue.

i'd really like these not to be printed by the lab, at least, as is the case with many french films. platter houses have no use for these cues (with rare exceptions), and c/o houses could be encouraged to use removable cues. better yet, no onscreen cues at all. i can think of several ways of doing this, although i'm not a c/o projectionist so take that with a grain of salt.

i always count reels when watching a film, and the difficulty i have doing this is a good indicator of the presentation level.

carl
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 02-21-2004, 04:50 AM:
 
A well made tape splice? Yes, always. The horizontal "tape edge lines" are far too noticeable. Now if you're talking an ultrasonic splice, then no it would pass through without being noticed.

Changeover cues I never miss though. They are far too large and obnoxious not to see.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 02-21-2004, 08:18 AM:
 
Manny,

Quick math...how long is a piece of sensing tape on a screen if on the frame line? The answer

a: 1/24th of a second (.042)
b: 1/12th of a second (.083)

If you guessed "a", you are WRONG. It is "b" and to add insult to injury...it jumps from the top of the screen to the bottom just in insure it is seen.

All you are doing is to justify or rationalize a bad practice.

I would prefer a non-visible reel change cue as well. As Steve said it does have a 100-year history though and probably not worth chaning now since it is the studios and screening rooms that use them most.

Steve
 

---

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 02-21-2004, 09:09 AM:
 
maybe this is something for another thread, but...

do changeover cues really have a 100-year history? 100 years ago there weren't features as we know them. there were one and two reelers. i would think a title card would have sufficed as a cue. many early features are divided into "acts" which i always supposed to mirror the original reel configuration. so you know when "end of act 2" pops on screen, it's time to roll "act" 3. i know some projectionists (not to mention accompanists) had very detailed outlines of the action, and might even vary projector speed as appropriate.

is there any historical documentation on cue usage? it seems like the kind of thing noone would have thought to commit to record at the time. you can't go by the fact that old prints have cues now.

carl
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 02-21-2004, 10:47 AM:
 

quote:

---

I would prefer a non-visible reel change cue as well. As Steve said it does have a 100-year history though and probably not worth chaning now since it is the studios and screening rooms that use them most.

---

Steve: "All you are doing is to justify or rationalize a bad practice."

Fascinating!

As for the "math lesson" the apparent solution is to modify the practice so that the cue is placed along the edge of the frame line so it is off to one side. It might be more visible on that one frame but at least it won't last for a whole twelfth of a second.
 

---

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 02-21-2004, 11:00 AM:
 
It's hard to give an unbiased evaluation when you know you're biased.

Changeover cues have uses beyond just changeovers, though. There's value in being able to be able to refer to what reel a given defect is on, and reels are a convenient way to do that. (E.g.: "There was a nasty lab splice on reel 3," or "whoa, you should replace reel 5, there was lots of soundtrack redeveloper present on the left edge of the picture.") Yeah, its possible to count splices and figur eout reel boundaries without cues.

While perhaps not enough to solely justify the existance of cues, I do think it helps to buttress the argument for keeping them.

--jhawk
 

---

Posted by Jeffry L. Johnson (Member # 453) on 02-21-2004, 11:06 AM:
 
"The Speed of Sound," by Scott Eyman, ©1997, ISBN 0-684-81162-6, p. 349 footnote:

quote:

---

"It was about the time of Good News [(1930, MGM)] that the studios devised cue marks for the ends of reels, to help projectionists make smooth changeovers. "In the future, and until further notice, all changeover signals will be visual," said the small print on the bottom of the Good News cue sheet. "These signals appear at the end of the reel in the form of a round, black spot appearing steady in the upper right hand corner of the screen during four consecutive frames. On a very dark screen or fadeout, the spot has a white line around it. The signal is fashioned so that it is clearly visible if watched for, but not particularly noticeable to an audience. Two sets of signals appear on the end of each reel. The FIRST SET is the signal to start the motor of the incoming machine, and the SECOND SET is the signal to cut over picture and sound..." When MGM said "until further notice," they probably didn't think they were referring to the next seventy years, for cue marks have remained the norm to the present day."

---

quote:

---

* To: AMIA-L@LSV.UKY.EDU
* Subject: Re: [AMIA-L] Cue marks
* From: "Richard P. May" <Rpmay1@AOL.COM>
* Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 18:09:44 -0400
* Comments: To: AMIA-L@LSV.UKY.EDU|Association
* Message-id: <7D9F6E72.54FBDC74.00053BAA@aol.com>
* Reply-to: Association of Moving Image Archivists <AMIA-L@LSV.UKY.EDU>

Cue marks were standardized in 1930, along with the "Academy" leader. Before that, I think it would be a fair guess that projectionists placed similar marks on prints to expidite changeovers.
Up until 1937, features were cued for 1000 ft. reels. Since almost all feature prints were shipped on 2000 ft. reels, prints were then made to be combined as A and B sections, spliced together in the exchange when received from the labs, with cues only at the end of the B section.
Several years ago, we found at the old MGM studio some cards to be enclosed with prints, detailing the outgoing scenes of each reel, so the projectionist could make the changeover based on the content on screen. The last shot of each reel was held for what seemed like forever so any overlap would not matter. This type editing can be seen in early MGM sound films like MADAME X (1929).

DM

---

quote:

---

It might be more visible on that one frame but at least it won't last for a whole twelfth of a second.

---

So Manny 1/24 of a second is ok for something to flash on the screen? Why if that's the case, then you don't need ANY film cleaners at all! Think about it, all those nasty black blobs of dirt couldn't possibly be seen or bothersome at only 1/24 second, which is exactly how long each one of them is on the screen.

It's bad form. Naughty Manny!

quote:

---

Changeover cues have uses beyond just changeovers, though.

---

John, why not just have Deluxe Labs license their special CRAP code to all of the labs as a replacement to changeover cues? We could eliminate the old fashioned changeover cues and have a certain pattern of CRAP code that the changeover projectionist could look for. At least that way it would match the rest of the movie's distractions.

(Yes, yes, I know most uses for changeover cues are at screening rooms before the film is released...that was a joke people!)
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 02-21-2004, 05:08 PM:
 
What would be the best way to design a non-visible c/o cue? Footage counts would only work if a given reel had no missing frames in it. If Dolby, DTS, or SDDS have provisions for carrying metadata (I'm pretty sure that the DTS XD-10 could do it), there could be cues in the digital sound system to turn on lightbulbs (or ring bells) in the booth to indicate "motor" and "changeover" (or control automation to actually do the changoever), but that would only work if the theatre in question had digital sound capability. The only other possibility that comes to mind would be notches in the edge of the film which could somehow (optically?) trigger relays to turn on lightbulbs or ring bells. All of these options would require extra equipment, however.
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 02-21-2004, 05:18 PM:
 
The problem with dirt is that we're rarely talking about a single rogue offender. Usually, there are bits of dust/dirt "dancing" all over the screen for seconds at a time.

As for the ultrasonic splices. They sure are nice but the splicer is expensive. It's debatable whether it's worth it.

I don't think the average viewer is sufficiently disturbed by any of these things.

I have tried using the small edge cues so as to make them invisible. Personally, I can see the image jump or shift slightly when they go through, so they're no less visible. Furthermore, I've lost a few of them along the way.

Some of us are functioning out here in the real world under less-than-ideal circumstances where things can go wrong and where the lesser of two evils is sometimes not such a bad thing.

Sure, I could go ahead and lie and say that I show every frame and there's never any dirt on my prints. I could make all kinds of outrageous claims with the (relative) security that it would be a longshot that any of you would actually show up for a screening but I don't see where that would be helpful.

I consider it to be a greater glitch to rely on one of those stupid little cues (which still affect the presentation) only to have it fall off and wreck your presentation in far more noticeable ways.

As for coming up with a new c/o system...those are all good possibilities but weigh the cost of implementation versus the perceived benefit.

And, besides, they've been there for over 100 years. (So have dirt, scratches, jump, jitter and weave...but never mind all of that.)
 

---

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 02-21-2004, 05:28 PM:
 

quote:

---

What would be the best way to design a non-visible c/o cue?

---

quote:

---

"The Speed of Sound," by Scott Eyman, ©1997, ISBN 0-684-81162-6, p. 349 footnote: ....

---

hey, i read that book. i should have known the answer.

carl
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 02-21-2004, 05:32 PM:
 
Me thinks Manny is reading these posts a little too seriously this morning.

Manny, you need to try Neumade Aucuta II cue tape. I have never seen it fall off when used in this manner, and assuming you are using properly aligned Neumade splicers and your projectors don't have any "issues", then these will pass right by without any glitch in the image.



*No, you do not have to make them this long.

*I have never seen this type of cue placement fail on Kelmar or CE failsafes, regardless of how many months the film is played.

*The biggest trick here is to make sure there is no overlap past the edge of the film. If so, you WILL see an image shift in the gate as it passes. Your splicer must also be able to perfectly punch that tape. (I have only seen this from a properly cared for Neumade.)
*NEVER apply the cue via "wrap-around" technique.

*ALL cues that come on a "roll" suck. It's those that fail and/or fall off over time. Stick with Neumade. There is no acceptable substitute.
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 02-21-2004, 06:04 PM:
 
Looks good.

In fairness, the ones I used that fell off were not that long. That stretch of tape in the photo is about as long as one of my cross cues.

Couple of problems:

1. Don't have Neumade splicers.
2. I once had quite a bit of Accuta II tape but I stopped using it because it pulls the paper backing along with the foil tape. I hate Accuta II tape.

Still, I will make an effort to locate some of the evil Accuta II and try a cue like the one in your picture. I fully expect that there will be some image shifting at cue time but I promise to be honest and report back if it turns out okay.

I suppose we can blame any problems on my splicer and/or gate.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 02-21-2004, 06:15 PM:
 

quote:

---

1. Don't have Neumade splicers.

---

quote:

---

2. I once had quite a bit of Accuta II tape but I stopped using it because it pulls the paper backing along with the foil tape. I hate Accuta II tape.

---

quote:

---

I fully expect that there will be some image shifting at cue time but I promise to be honest and report back if it turns out okay.

---

It won't. I know there are tons of people out there who will claim their CIR splicers are a gift from the gods, but if you don't have a (properly aligned) Neumade, don't expect much because the perforations in the cue tape won't be perfectly punched, even if the CIR is brand new. It should still be better than what you have now though.
 

---

Posted by Joe Schmidt (Member # 822) on 02-21-2004, 07:46 PM:
 
A comment on cue marks...

In most any old movie, particularly 1930's era on the TCM channel, for example, you'll see black round cue marks about every 8-10 minutes as the films were put together on 1000' reels. The cues were punched in the negative that was in the camera and thus carry forward on all subsequents internegs and prints. In the earlier times films were distributed on 1000' reels and that practice continued for a long time in foreign countries.

Subsequently "double" reels were made up which are the 20-min. reels of today. In current production I believe cue marks are not usually punched in the negative, but are added manually to each of the color reversal intermediates used to prepare most of the release prints.
 

---

Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 02-23-2004, 01:22 AM:
 

quote:

---

Up until 1937, features were cued for 1000 ft. reels

---

quote:

---

In current production I believe cue marks are not usually punched in the negative, but are added manually to each of the color reversal intermediates used to prepare most of the release prints.

---

quote:

---

What would be the best way to design a non-visible c/o cue?

---