Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Harry Potter Quality?

This is topic Harry Potter Quality? 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=006243

Posted by Dean Kollet (Member # 1789) on 06-04-2004, 12:32 AM:

I don't know about everyone else, but this film (all 4 prints that we have) looks horrible on screen. It's grainy and the colors are just plain crap...I think the last movie I screened that looked like this (be it intentional) was 21 Grams...

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 06-04-2004, 12:48 AM:

Yeah, Dean.

I noted basically the same thing in the trailer. I thought my eyes were going bad, because I thought the focus was crappy. It looked soft to me. I "rode the focus knob" during the preview, but after the fourth run of the trailer, I said "Poop on it."

I know that is not very professional, but I have sure seen some very poor quality on the mastering of trailers. By the way you describe, it does not surprise me. It seems as though the motto is "Get it out the door and let's worry about it later."

I will be running that movie Saturday, and I'll post some feedback on it since you opened the door.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 06-04-2004, 01:29 AM:

I just installed a couple of Kinoton heads and did a side by side comparison on Shrek and during the screening of Harry Potter against a Simplex. The results were amazing and everyone, yes EVERYONE (including teenage staff members) noticed the increase in sharpness. I got a couple of compliments from people who didn't even know anything had been changed in the booth.

Potter looked quite good on that Kinoton! The slightest movement on screen really kills the resolution.

Posted by Dean Kollet (Member # 1789) on 06-04-2004, 02:19 AM:

Brad,

seems like you are favoring the Kinoton's...what kind did you install? I should say that we are using Simplex 1060's :-)...but we haven't had problems with any other prints.

-Dean

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 06-04-2004, 02:45 AM:

PK60D on SLC console.

Posted by Steve Scott (Member # 630) on 06-04-2004, 08:44 AM:

There's just different contrast qualities to it, and as a result, you may have trouble with different combinations of lenses & light. The film looked very clear on my SA's with XeTron consoles (3 or 4kW this week), schneider lenses.

Posted by Michael Barry (Member # 237) on 06-04-2004, 09:34 AM:

Yay, Kinoton! Glad to see you liked it, Brad. I am particularly fond of their platter pay-out mechanism (no swing arm, no moving parts at all) and their new make-up table which synchronises platter and MUT transport in both make-up and break-down modes! (Does anyone else offer this?)

Here's a first - an advertising slogan that ACTUALLY HAS SUBSTANCE.

That is, Kinton's tagline is 'See The Difference'...and you actually can. No hype! [Big Grin]

Posted by Christian Appelt (Member # 1067) on 06-04-2004, 05:41 PM:

I just came from seeing HARRY POTTER, and image quality leaves much to be desired. When I compare it to the first two films, it looks slightly better because it has less grain, but except some closeups, the image is very soft, lacking details. There was quite some negative dust, picture steadiness was OK.

Contrast seems to high to me, giving the film a "dupey" look.
Not state of the art even for Super 35 photography, but better than Part 2 which looked worse than 16mm scope to me when it came out. But I heard that quality varied between prints from different labs (for the German market), like in the case of TROY.

I liked the picture much more than 1&2, but why can't they get it really sharp. Oh, and I did see it on Kinoton machines... [Wink]

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 06-04-2004, 10:28 PM:

Michael, Kinoton is on the right track to a magnificent platter design, but until they listen to the problems with it and fix them, I'm not going to install one.

Posted by Michael Barry (Member # 237) on 06-04-2004, 10:35 PM:

I know that the payout angle is too narrow to allow another layer of film to be placed on top - is this your main concern with its design? I know that some people don't like how you must match the height of your film return from the projector to the platter.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 06-05-2004, 01:28 AM:

The return height of the film on takeup is an issue, yes. That's just insanely moronic.

The layering of film isn't that big of an issue, but an arm that could be flipped over to cover the opening as the film enters the brain would solve that issue for anyone with it. (Look at a new AW3 center ring with the latch to see the concept.)

There are many other issues with it though. I know I've gone over it on the forums before and I brought it up to Kinoton at ShoWest. A few quick ones off the top of my head...

Needs a platter mount film cleaner bracket no higher than 4 feet off the floor. Big Sky and MiT mount theirs at the top of the tree, apparently because they think everyone using their equipment is at least 9 1/2 feet tall. It needs to be somewhere around waist level for ease of use.

True swivel rollers for feed and return, not the way Kinoton designed it with the feed one having 180 degrees of travel and the takeup one having the *other* 180 degrees of travel. That's stupid and accomplishes nothing, because the projector STILL has to be at that exact 90 degree angle to the platter!

Each platter should payout and takeup individually. If I have two ST-200 platters and I want to feed from one and takeup on the other, I should be able to do that! (I have not verified that this is indeed an issue, but was told that it was.)

Automation should not have to *tell* the platter when the projector is started. The platter should be able to figure this out on it's own like all others.

The platter should also be smart enough to be able to leave 3 brains mounted at all times and figure out which platter is the payout via the sensors and which platter is the takeup by which arm has been pulled. Duh!

User-adjustable ramp speeds on payout is also desired. I've never met an "auto adjusting" platter that I liked, and the Kinoton is no different. No two platter decks are alike in speed. If I want the platter to take 10 seconds to ramp from full stop to full on at the start of the show, I should be able to set that. Likewise if I wanted it to reach full speed in 1.5 seconds, I should be able to set that. (Obviously the more sluggish the better.)

As you can see, none of this is anything that would require Kinoton to junk the design. It just needs a few modifications to be really great. Until then, it's the Christie AW3 all the way.

Let's take this elsewhere if someone else feels the need to comment. This topic is getting too far off track.

Posted by Michael Barry (Member # 237) on 06-05-2004, 06:41 AM:

I'd like to respond - please go ahead and move this discussion where appropriate (then let me know where!)

Thanks! [Smile]

Posted by Antonio Marcheselli (Member # 373) on 06-05-2004, 06:47 PM:

Hi

Our copy of HP came in very good shape, bright and detailed image, wonderful colors, crear and amazing sound.

Bye
A

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 06-05-2004, 09:20 PM:

Ran it today, didn't have any quality problems. Looked fine to me, and nobody lodged any complaints.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 06-05-2004, 09:48 PM:

Michael, just start a new thread and link back to this one. [Smile]

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 06-06-2004, 06:58 AM:

Has anyone been able to compare the Imax version with the 35? I'm planning on seeing the Imax version later in the week after the crowds die down.

Posted by John T. Hendrickson, Jr (Member # 849) on 06-06-2004, 02:49 PM:

Five prints. Good quality. No problems.

Posted by Scott Balko (Member # 438) on 06-06-2004, 03:22 PM:

I actually thought that this print had better color and contrast than a lot we've had in past months. Now my print of Day after Tomorrow sucks. Kind of washed out looking and hazy.

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 06-06-2004, 03:31 PM:

Dean, what kind of anamorphic attachment are you using? If if is an old anamorphic or something other than Schneider or Isco (or even a new lense coated with oil), you can automatically expect a poor quality picture.

Look at the reflection of the porthole glass. If it looks like a milkshake, you can expect poor color temperature and soft focus.

It is amazing how many people neglect the porthole glass. While absent from the theater I work, some people really didn't seem to care about how dirty the glass was. The ones who did care used that damned Windex on the glass - which is as worthless as the tits on a boar hog! Some others have not yet figured out that you cannot clean a window with an oily rag. [Eek!]

I cleaned the portholes with the industrial stuff I purchased. It took longer to erect and climb the ladder to clean the porthole glass than it did to clean the window.

I gave Brad a can of that stuff a long time ago and even cleaned his porthole windows. He will attest to how well it worked.

The stuff only costed me 2 bucks for a 19-oz can. One of the girls confiscated the can I had in the booth - and she used it to clean everything. Now I can't seem to keep enough of it on hand. I have 10 more cans in the car - the ony reason I still have them is because I didn't let them lay adrift in the theater. [beer]

Posted by Evans A Criswell (Member # 381) on 06-06-2004, 09:56 PM:

What exactly is this "industrial window cleaner stuff" and where can I get it? I've never found anything that effectively cleans the inside of my car windows without leaving streaks. I need some of this stuff you're talking about.

Theatres here have been too busy for me to see Harry Potter yet. I'll mention the quality of the print I see when I go one night this week. The "reference quality" theatre (Regal River Oaks 8 in Decatur) is not showing HP3, so I'll have to see it in one of the others.

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 06-07-2004, 12:30 AM:

Evans, it is marketed my Louis Auto Glass (a local mom and pop enterprise) which operates out of Bellingham, WA. Their number is AFAIK is 360.734.3840.

It contains 2-Butoxyethanol (111-76-2), Ethyl Alcohol (64-17-5), Methyl Alcohol (67-56-1), Deionized Water (7732-18-5). It uses LP Petroleum Gas (68476-68-7) as a propellant.

I caught on to that stuff when I had Louis replace several windshields in my rolling stock. It is amazing how well it works. Of all the years I spent in the booth, and all the times I scrubbed cigarette haze off the inside of the windshields in conjunction of removing bug goo from the outside, I have found nothing better.

The first time you use it, you'll probably have to expend a little effort (about a minute or so) to get 10 years or more of film from other cleansers off the window. After that time, it is a snap!

It smells good, too. A nice fresh smell. Maybe that's why the girls like it. [Smile]

I use it for practically everything. It cleans the computer monitor screen from sneeze remnants, greasy finger prints from the monitor, computer cases that have sat in hostile enviroments, you name it.

Posted by Evans A Criswell (Member # 381) on 06-07-2004, 10:28 PM:

As promised, comments on the quality of the Harry Potter print I saw. It almost seems that this movie was shot by a bunch of people working independently, since different scenes had different looks. Some scenes looked fine, while others had an "overexposed" look in the bright areas. Some were very soft and dull-looking, while others were fine. I don't think any of these problems were due to the print in the theatre -- but from the source. I saw no defects in the print except for some crap code at one point fairly early in the movie.

Posted by Ivo Noorlander (Member # 1315) on 06-08-2004, 01:59 PM:

I don't think these things are defects. Harry Potter 3 is a much darker story than the first two installments. Therefor the lighting is moodier than before and the look differs depending on the content of the scene. The film was color graded digitally, so any undesired inconsistency could have been corrected. There is an article on the American Cinematographer web page where cinematographer Michael Seresin discusses the production.

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 06-10-2004, 10:50 PM:

Re: Glass cleaner
Paul, I get a product called KR Reflections from KR Supply out of Seattle. It has pretty much the same makeup... smells good, too. The kids really like it for the popcorn machine and front exit windows.

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 06-11-2004, 12:11 AM:

Jack, it does have a nice fresh smell. I wonder if it is the same product?

I might be in your area maybe next week, I'll probably bring a can along with me so we can compare notes.

Maybe the smell of the stuff is why the girls at Anacortes scoffed it up, too. [Smile]

Posted by Phil Blake (Member # 2012) on 06-11-2004, 03:36 AM:

one of the best glass cleaners I have ever come across is the Amway Crystal clear window cleaner. (no I am not a dealer!) It is the only one I have used with leaving streaks or foggy patches.

Posted by David Ingalsbe (Member # 2433) on 06-14-2004, 02:44 AM:

I saw some grain to HP3 but it was not to bad. My big problem has been with the lack of quality checking. I recived two prints that had reels that turned blue after lab splices. This has happened alot lately, 2 prints of troy tured green, 1 print of shrek turned yellow, 1 stepford turned black every revolution of the reel for one hundred feet, and 1 stepford had sproket damage. [Eek!]

that's alot of [bs]

from the lab. With distribution like this who needs enemys [evil]

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 06-14-2004, 08:57 AM:

"Safelight" fog on color print film is usually blue or cyan in color. Accidental exposure to "white" light usually shows up as a yellow or brown colored fog. If a reel has unacceptable levels of fogging, a replacement should be requested immediately.

I wrote a SMPTE technical paper to help laboratories reduce the risk of "safelight" fog:

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