Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Edit Splices

This is topic Edit Splices 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=005885

Posted by Edward Jurich (Member # 1787) on 02-23-2004, 11:08 AM:

I screened a print last night to check it for an upcoming show and found that the editing splices between scene changes were showing up on the screen. This is a scope print so frame lines are thin. We crop off a fair amount of top and bottom of picture but these splices are really noticable. Even with careful framing a few are still noticable.
What I'm wondering is why the splice lines are white. I'd assume it's the negative being assembled and spliced. So wouldn't the positive print have dark lines where the gap in the splice is?

Posted by Christian Appelt (Member # 1067) on 02-23-2004, 12:39 PM:

No. The splice is a little thicker than the rest of the film strip, and the film base is chemically welded. This results in a "minus density", the printing light is refracted.

There are splicers for 8mm and 16mm (i.e. Hamann, Geyer, Arri) that use not a straight overlap but make two wedges. These splices are less visible, but the greater mechanical force applied to 35mm in printing does not allow for this design.

There used to be a special narrower CinemaScope negative splice, but I believe it is not recommended for safety purposes any more.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 02-23-2004, 01:38 PM:

Christian is correct: the film edges of splices refract light passing through the spliced negative during printing, leaving an unexposed line across the width of the film. Same reason that base-side scratches on a negative element show up as white on the final print. Sometimes a bit of splicing cement "oozes" outside the overlap area, showing up on the screen.

SMPTE Recommended Practice RP111 is very specific about the dimensions of cement splices, including the overlap that should not fall into the projectable image area (0.825 x 0.690 inches for 2.39:1 "scope"). It's really a matter of the splicer used, and the negative cutter's splicing technique. Yes, increasing the overlap of a cement splice increases the reliability and reduces the risk of the splice breaking, but with more likelihood it will be seen on the screen.

One way to eliminate any splices being seen is to edit the negative into two rolls with alternating scenes and black leader, and use "zero-cut" editing:

http://www.acvl.org/manual/3c.htm#Zero%20cuts

quote:
Zero cuts

Another method of achieving invisible splices in printing from A and B rolls is to use the checkerboard technique, but extend each end of each scene at least two frames. When rolls so prepared are placed in a synchronizer, there would be a four-frame overlap at the head and tail of each scene. Rolls prepared in this manner must be printed on a printer that will make scene changes by means of a shutter that rapidly opens or closes. Not all laboratories are equipped to print rolls prepared for zero cut, so check with your lab. Zero cuts made on a 16mm continuous release printer usually appear as less than one frame dissolves. Zero cuts made on 16mm step contact or optical printer will appear as a perfect straight cut.

quote:
Black leader

It is recommended that only black leader be used between scenes. To insure that the leader is opaque, it is suggested that the black leader be made by fully exposing a positive stock and developing in a positive bath to a minimum density of 3.00. Specify this minimum density when ordering black leader from your lab. If the black leader is old, it is wise to check it for shrinkage. Use black leader for 16mm negative A and B rolls and for 35mm negative rolls prepared for the checkerboard technique.

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 02-23-2004, 06:45 PM:

If the film in question is Passion you may find it difficult to get some of the neg splices out of the picture entirely if showing the specified 'Scope height.

Posted by Dominic Case (Member # 1830) on 02-24-2004, 01:41 AM:

Hammann slicers do exist in 35mm and are commonly but not universally used. They make a chamfered or bevelled splice which is a lot thinner than a traditional overlap splice and so are ideal for anamorphic productions where the frame line is minimal. They fall very safely within SMPTE RP111 that John refers to. I guess they weren't used on this show (whatever it is).

Conventional splices come in two widths, with the narrower ones just falling within RP111 specs for 'scope negatives. Excessive cement spread on this type of splice would cause the problem you describe, or the use of a normal width splicer (however good the splices). An over-height aperture plate would also cause this problem.

Are the splices a problem throughout or do they change from reel to reel?

Posted by Edward Jurich (Member # 1787) on 02-24-2004, 11:03 AM:

The film in question is in fact "Passion". This is the first scope print, including old classic prints, that is showing negative splices at this theater.

Posted by Dean Kollet (Member # 1789) on 02-24-2004, 12:20 PM:

we have a very bad visible splice in the first reel of "Passion" too...it's absolutely horrible, guess I'm going to have to dig it out tonight....can't the processing companies do anything about this?

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 02-24-2004, 12:39 PM:

Dean Kollet asked:

quote:
...can't the processing companies do anything about this?

The issue is the splicer and technique used to cut the original negative, which is not usually done by the labs. Wet printing (which is usually used to make the master positive anyway) will help hide some minor splice-related issues like oozing cement. But if all the negative splices were made poorly, or with overlap violating SMPTE RP111, not much can be done. Again, techniques (checkerboard cutting and use of "zero cut" printing) exist to completely eliminate the negative splices from showing on the screen.

Posted by Ken Lackner (Member # 1002) on 02-24-2004, 12:42 PM:

I screened Passion last night. At first the splices were showing up at the bottom of the screen so I asked someone to lower the framing a nose hair (hey, I didn't want to miss any of the movie [Smile]

). Then they showed up at the top. I figured he just lowered it too much. I hope I'll be able to find just the right spot that gets rid of these splices on screen.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 02-24-2004, 12:44 PM:

How common is zero-cut printing? It sounds like a great idea for a number of reasons, particularly with scope prints and probably for 16mm as well (which is normally cut as A&B rolls).

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 02-24-2004, 01:39 PM:

More links to "zero cut" printing:

http://www.duart.com/film_blowup.html

http://www.hi-beam.net/fw/fw15/0963.html

http://www.filmlab.co.za/tecnical_info.htm

http://www.duke.edu/web/freewater/AlphaRateCard3.pdf

The method can be used with both 16mm and 35mm productions.

Posted by Christian Appelt (Member # 1067) on 02-24-2004, 05:19 PM:

quote:
Hammann slicers do exist in 35mm and are commonly but not universally used. They make a chamfered or bevelled splice which is a lot thinner than a traditional overlap splice and so are ideal for anamorphic productions where the frame line is minimal.

Dominic, Hammann made two different types. The first is called in German "Filmhobel", which means "film plane". It takes off a small strip to create a kind of step. Both film ends welded together still are thicker than the rest of the film.

The second type is called "Filmspalter", which means "film splitter". The splitter's knife does not take off a piece of film, it cuts a wedge. Two wedges overlapping makes for a almost invisible splice especially in the small formats.

Negative cutters told me that the second type was not used for 35mm because the stress on that super narrow would be too great.
I will try to find a picture.

Posted by Dominic Case (Member # 1830) on 02-25-2004, 07:09 PM:

quote:
Negative cutters told me that the second type was not used for 35mm because the stress on that super narrow would be too great.

There was always concern that the thinner type of traditional overlap splice (traditionally used for anamorphic negs) was also too weak. However, the majority of neg cutters that I know of (including Australia, UK, USA, Canada, and so far as I hear, in Germany) do now use the Hammann "cleaver" splicer which makes a mitred cut and splice. It's a good strong splice that doesn't fall apart if it's properly made! This type of splice is much narrower than the frame line, even on anamorphic productions.

I guess (does anyone actually know???) that "The Passion..." was not spliced this way.

And as an aside, the Digital Intermediate process eliminates all splicing problems [Wink]

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 02-25-2004, 07:45 PM:

Mr. Case... are you the author of "Motion Picture Film Processing"? If so, I'm a big fan! I've had a first edition of that book since 1985, and have constantly referred to it over the years. It's very well written and is one of my all-time favorites! In fact, when I got out of the service end of the business and liquidated my library, it is one of the books I kept.
[Smile]

Welcome to the forums!

Posted by Dominic Case (Member # 1830) on 02-25-2004, 08:25 PM:

quote:
Mr. Case... are you the author of "Motion Picture Film Processing"?

The very same. Thanks for the comments. [thumbsup]

Sadly it's now out of print. List etiquette would probably regard it as self-advertising if I mentioned the name of my newer book, but it's in the same vein and covers a similar range of topics. Funnily enough I had a conversation about Hammann splicers with the translator of the soon-to-be-published German edition of the book.

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 02-25-2004, 08:49 PM:

Please, do tell! What is the ISBN?

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 02-25-2004, 09:02 PM:

Film Technology in Post Production

ISBN:0240514637 Paper Text
ISBN:0240516508 Trade Paperback

Posted by Dominic Case (Member # 1830) on 02-25-2004, 10:09 PM:

quote:
ISBN:0240514637 Paper Text
ISBN:0240516508 Trade Paperback

Actually the first number refers to the first edition (1997) the second number to the second (much improved!) edition of 2001

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 02-25-2004, 10:30 PM:

I guess (does anyone actually know???) that "The Passion..." was not spliced this way. And as an aside, the Digital Intermediate process eliminates all splicing problems

I was told by someone from The Passion production that it was D.I. (for one thing to correct the color of the lead actor's eyes) but all these fat splices doesn't make sense unless there was a lot of cutting after digital. I know the splices are not all the same; it varies.

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 02-26-2004, 09:18 AM:

quote:
the intricacies of negative cutting to match a non-linear edit and the process of grading and regrading for the answer print.

Wonderful! It's on my list. Thanks!
[Smile]

Posted by Christian Appelt (Member # 1067) on 02-26-2004, 06:06 PM:

Dominic, it's a great book. I have often recommended it to students, together with YOUR FILM AND THE LAB and a German book from the 1970s called FILMHANDBUCH (naturally, also out of print).
Who, if I may ask, will do the translation to German? I'm asking because I just had trouble finding a good translator (G to E) for the English version of an article about cinematography - it's hard to get technical writing translated properly...

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 03-01-2004, 09:57 AM:

Given the consistent complaints about the neg splices on a film as popular as THE PASSION is, I would think that the easiest solution to the problem would be to file a custom aperture plate to cover this anomaly. After all, this title will probably have unusually long legs, why not give the patrons a better show by the little bit of extra effort it would take to cut a special plate? I mean, there have been lots of titles over the years that required special tweaking -- FANTASIA comes to mind -- Disney insisted that the masks be properly set for 1.37, which certainly was quite a bit of effort for the majority of theatres that could normally only mask to 1.85.

Cutting a new plate would produce a very slight black margin and probably a soft rather than hard edge at either the top or bottom of the screen (I would opt for the bottom edge), but that would be much less of a distraction than the constant flashing. Of course you could always raise the bottom (or drop the top) mask as well, but I suspect that kind of attention to presentation values would be asking way too much of today's exhibitors.

Posted by Edward Jurich (Member # 1787) on 03-01-2004, 11:22 AM:

Actually, I did cut a new aperture plate. The old one overlapped the masking enough that all the edit splices were flashing on the masking. I filed ever so carefully so the picture "just" barely overlaps the masking for a sharp edge. Now only the splices that fall into the picture area are noticeable, I'd say about 3-4% of the film.
I think the best solution for a problem like this is to have someone edit who knows how to splice [uhoh]

Posted by Dominic Case (Member # 1830) on 03-01-2004, 08:06 PM:

quote:
I think the best solution for a problem like this is to have someone edit who knows how to splice

Sad "smiley" noted in your comment - but ironically that's not the issue. The editor edits on a computer. Even in the old days of editing on film, it was a work print that was cut and spliced by the editor, not the camera negative. The original negative is spliced by a specialist negative matcher: someone who should very much know how to splice, and also what type of splicer to use. There must be a good reason for the problem you have had on this film - but it's not the editor's doing.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 03-01-2004, 08:34 PM:

Dominic Case wrote:

quote:
The original negative is spliced by a specialist negative matcher: someone who should very much know how to splice, and also what type of splicer to use.

Also known as a "negative cutter":

Film Glossary

quote:
Negative Cutter - The person who cuts and assembles the original negative to match the edited workprint, which then goes to the lab for the answer print.

Negative Matcher - same as Negative Cutter.

Typical negative cutting services:

http://www.jrmediaservices.com/index.asp

http://www.jrmediaservices.com/pgServices.asp

quote:
JR Post has modeled precision throughout the whole process of negative conforming. The last step in the process for the negative cutter is to piece the final cuts together by the "hot splice" method. This tough, often frustrating job, needs knowledgeable talent to do it right. JR Post's staff averages over 10 years of hands-on experience. For the filmmaker that means the right cut the first time!

JR Post daily works with Super 35 mm, 35 mm, Super 16 mm and 16 mm film formats. We are familiar with both 3- and 4-perf film and can handle scope or anamorphic productions. For the student, we can set up an interview time with one of our staff members to show you what materials we will need from you so that you are ready for negative cutting before any costly errors are made.

http://www.sohoimages.com/pr_guidetopp2.htm

quote:
When a film is being printed for cinema, it will need to be cut exactly as per the final projected version. Optical effects such as fades and dissolves generally require a checker-board cut (called an A+B roll). Here, every reel is cut as two rolls of neg, with shots running alternately on each: with black spacing on roll A where a shot occurs on roll B, for example. Basic opticals are created by overlapping certain shots between the rolls, and carefully timing the printing process to create fade or dissolve effects in the print roll. N.B.: For a 16mm finecut film, every shot will have to be cut in this way. The 35mm frame is wide enough to splice shots together without the cement join intruding into the picture area. 16mm is half the width, so this is not possible. Using the A+B joining method, the cement splice overlaps into the black spacing following each shot.

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 03-01-2004, 08:51 PM:

The 35mm frame is wide enough to splice shots together without the cement join intruding into the picture area. 16mm is half the width

This is really poorly worded no matter how you look at it. The 35mm frame is wide enough? Do they mean frameline? 16mm is half the width?

Posted by Dominic Case (Member # 1830) on 03-02-2004, 01:35 AM:

quote:
This is really poorly worded no matter how you look at it.

At least it gives the general idea that if you are dealing with smaller film, the splices are a bigger problem. If you want more, try

quote:
In 35mm negative, the frameline between successive frames is wide enough to allow a cement splice without intruding into the picture area. (Anamorphic productions leave a very small frame line area, and a splicer making a narrower join must be used). However, in 16mm, there is no room for an overlapping splice between frames, and so a different technique is used.

Checkerboard cutting
In checkerboard cutting, alternating shots are made up into two rolls (A and B) interspaced with black spacing. The cement splice is made off-centre, so that the entire splice overlaps into the black spacing rather than into the last frame of picture. Each roll is printed in succession onto a single roll of print stock.
. . .

refer to the second post on this page for the source [Wink]

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 03-02-2004, 01:22 PM:

Dominic: You do have a way with words! [Smile]

Clarity and brevity are the hallmarks of your books.

Posted by Ivo Noorlander (Member # 1315) on 03-16-2004, 04:04 PM:

quote:
I was told by someone from The Passion production that it was D.I. (for one thing to correct the color of the lead actor's eyes) but all these fat splices doesn't make sense unless there was a lot of cutting after digital.

Somtimes the neg is cut before scanning to data for the DI. I think they do it to keep the expensive time on the scanner to a minimum. These budgetary restrictions usually apply to European films more than Hollywood movies, but at $30M I guess The Passion is pretty low budget for a big period flick.

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 03-16-2004, 04:40 PM:

quote:
FANTASIA comes to mind -- Disney insisted that the masks be properly set for 1.37, which certainly was quite a bit of effort for the majority of theatres that could normally only mask to 1.85.

For what release? I saw FANTASIA several times since the 1969 re-issue (twice in mono, once in 4-track mag), and all showings were projected at 1.85. Even when I saw the newly recorded score (in mag stereo) in its exclusive run at L.A.'s avco, it was shown 1.85.

Only when I saw the restored soundtrack version in 1990, did I see the OAR, and both the 70mm and 35mm versions acccomplished this through not using the entire frame available (i.e. - 70mm through hardmatting the sides, 35mm by windowboxing the entire image into the normal 1.85 range of the frame normally used for "flat" projection).

Posted by Andrew Duggan (Member # 1302) on 03-16-2004, 05:54 PM:

You know, I meant to bring up the marks in question here when I saw Passion a week or so ago. It was driving me nuts to watch the movie like that!

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 03-18-2004, 01:03 PM:

FANTASIA -- What release? Paul, it was the 50th Anniversary release, 1989. We ran it then and we got the notice that Buena Vista attached to the standard booking contract which said that the film had to be shown 1.33 (sic) with lens and aperture plate to correctly product that image on the screen and that if the side masking could not be brought in to match the side edges of the image, additional black masking had to be installed. It also said that it had to be played in stereo and it could not be played in mono because of the phase distortion mixing the tracks would cause. It said that these conditions were not negotiable.

Did all exhibitors fulfill the contract? Do all exhibitors report accurate box office receipts? I leave that for you to answer. [uhoh]

And excuse my pride when I say that over the years, in every instance of our booking this masterpiece (at least on 4 occasions), be it the standard mono version, the 4trk mag version, even the "Superscope" version which we had to convert, we have ALWAYS played it 1.37. Playing this feature at 1.85 is a total abortion; if you saw it this way in a first run, presumably first class theatre and not some multiplex dive (where it did play, unfortunately) then that trailer trash exhibitor should be fined for breech of contract and worse, for breech of the most basic tenants of exhibition, i.e., not to cause harm to the filmmaker's work and not to destroy the ability of the audience to appreciate the filmmaker's work as he intended it. Disney ought to sue the beegeesus out of those exhibitors -- the lowlife pig people that they are.

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 03-19-2004, 01:03 PM:

What's the "official" aspect ratio of Passion? I've seen Scope films that call for everything from 2.35 to 2.39 to 2.40. Maybe the visibility of the edit splices would have something to do with the fact that it's really 2.40:1?

=TMP=

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 03-19-2004, 01:51 PM:

Standard SMPTE 195 specifies a projectable image area of 0.825 x 0.690 inches, which with a 2X anamorphic lens, has a 2.39:1 aspect ratio. Any "scope" movie made today is expected to meet this standard.