Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Bad Christmas with the Kranks print

This is topic Bad Christmas with the Kranks print 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=006745

Posted by Jason M Miller (Member # 2597) on 11-27-2004, 12:53 AM:

I was not sure where I should post this so, I put it here...

But anyway, we got a bad copy of the Christmas with the Kranks/ we have what look like editing marks blink on the bottom of the screen every time the camera changes. Well I called our booking department on replacing it, they called the company and said that they have had so many complaints about it that they could not replace them all [Eek!]

. So my question to you guys is...how many of you got a bad copy? And did you get it replaced?

Posted by Aaron Sisemore (Member # 145) on 11-27-2004, 01:09 AM:

Those are negative splice marks, a common occurance with many scope films.

If they are occurring only at the top or bottom of the screen, simply adjust the framing knob to take them out of the picture.

If they are occurrring at both the top and bottom simultaneously, your scope aperture plate is cut too tall, allowing the negative splices to show.

These were also very visible on prints of 'Passion Of The Christ' as well.

-Aaron

Posted by David Yauch (Member # 2754) on 11-27-2004, 03:55 AM:

Bad print here too, on every reel, every print.

Good news is that we had no problem framing it out.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 11-27-2004, 06:51 AM:

Use the SMPTE 35-PA (RP40) Projector Alignment Film to verify that your projected image area for "scope" is not more than 0.690 inches high, which is marked on the film. The width should be 0.825 inches, at the fiducials marked on the film.

Splices in the original cut negative that intrude into the projectable image area specified by Standard SMPTE 195 would affect all prints, and are caused by use of an incorrect splicer or poor technique by the negative cutter. SMPTE Recommended Practice RP111 specifies the significant dimensions
of splices for 70- , 65-, and 35-mm motion picture
film intended for projection and exhibition or for laboratory printing.

Posted by Jason M Miller (Member # 2597) on 11-27-2004, 12:20 PM:

We are able to frame it out.

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 11-27-2004, 12:58 PM:

Changing prints isn't going to matter. Those are splices in the original camera negative and will thus be on the IP and all printing negatives. Frame it out as best you can and consider reducing aperture height. It may be possible to reduce height by carefull peening (pounding on) the existing plate and refiling.

DO NOT do this unless you know what you are doing, have the necessary edgeless aperture file, 35PA/RP40 test film, and are authorized to do so!

Then a slight adjustment of the masking will allow a sharp edge.

If this is not possible you might see if you can eliminate the distraction by slightly changing the tilt of the projector to put a tiny bit more of the image on either the top or bottom black masking and adjusting the framing so the flashes always hit the black where they will be less noticeable.

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 11-27-2004, 02:24 PM:

I think peening an aperture is not a good recommendation -- it is too easy to screw it up, and leaves you with no security blanket.

My suggestion is that everyone should have a spare set of apertures around, preferably an undersize set, and possibly an on-size set. In a pinch, when some movie shows up that has negative splices too wide, or is shrunk such that you see areas outside the protected region, you can at least throw in the undersize plate and improve presentation. And if you're skilled enough to cut a plate precisely, so much the better.

Oh yes...another "quick fix" is to mask the port glass, i.e. tape up something opaque to cut off the bottom of the image. Easier than futzing with the aperture, especially for a one-off.

A procedural question for John P.: If in fact the negative splices are oversize, shouldn't this have been noticed on the answer print? And shouldn't it be possible to correct for it when the interpositive is step-optically printed to the internegative (assuming that time constraints allowed that slower procedure)? I would be interested to know why, if those corrections were possible, they didn't happen here, or with the Passion of Christ (which was a much bigger deal than this movie). Any ideas?

--jhawk

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 11-29-2004, 09:43 AM:

quote: John Hawkinson
A procedural question for John P.: If in fact the negative splices are oversize, shouldn't this have been noticed on the answer print? And shouldn't it be possible to correct for it when the interpositive is step-optically printed to the internegative (assuming that time constraints allowed that slower procedure)? I would be interested to know why, if those corrections were possible, they didn't happen here, or with the Passion of Christ (which was a much bigger deal than this movie). Any ideas?

Yes, negative splices that do not conform to RP111 should have been found when screening the answer print, IF the screening room was set up for the correct projectable image area per SMPTE 195, AND someone noticed. Yes, an optical printer or digital intermediate could be used to "zoom in" and eliminate the splice lines, but contact printing of the intermediate stages is most commonly used due to cost/time constraints. Of course, "zooming in" could also compromise the desired composition.

Since "Kranks" could be framed to eliminate the lines in most cases, I suspect it was just a framing error or oversized aperture plate in those theatres that had an issue.

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 11-29-2004, 12:18 PM:

Contact printing of intermediate stages is more common? I hadn't realized that. Somehow I had assumed that usually there was sufficient time to optically print internegatives, and it was only in rare rush situations and logistical screwups where contact printing was used. [Frown]

(I am still confused why nobody has designed a contact printer to print long-pitch to short-pitch, e.g. by having the light source on the opposite side.)

I had envisioned not zooming, but instead that an aperture plate could be inserted into the optical printer, or some other sort of masking feature. I guess it must not work that way?

--jhawk

Posted by Ever Gonzalez (Member # 2794) on 11-29-2004, 12:31 PM:

I had something wierd with "Hero" to where we got a complaint that there was white light bleeding into the picture from the top. I took a look and they were right. It looked like ghosting of the frame line (i don't think thats possible), so I moved the framing up and it showed up at the bottom. I adjusted the shudder timing and it didn't do a darn thing. If I can remember correctly, I don't think it was during the entire print.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 11-29-2004, 12:45 PM:

quote: John Hawkinson
I had envisioned not zooming, but instead that an aperture plate could be inserted into the optical printer, or some other sort of masking feature. I guess it must not work that way?

An aperture could be used on a pin-registered step printer to produce thicker framelines to cover the non-standard splices, but then the framelines would intrude into the projectable image area defined by SMPTE 195. To produce opaque framelines ("hard matte") this would usually be done when printing the master positive onto the duplicate negative.

AFAIK, the idea of just reversing the direction of the light on a continuous contact printer HAS been proposed by several, but has not yet been implemented. Again, with the films wrapped around a 12-inch circumference printing sprocket, you want about a 0.3 percent pitch differential between the processed original and unprocessed raw stock for minimum slippage (best steadiness and sharpness).

quote: Ever Gonzalez
I had something wierd with "Hero" to where we got a complaint that there was white light bleeding into the picture from the top. I took a look and they were right. It looked like ghosting of the frame line (i don't think thats possible), so I moved the framing up and it showed up at the bottom. I adjusted the shudder timing and it didn't do a darn thing. If I can remember correctly, I don't think it was during the entire print.

Unfortunately, the subtitled scenes in "Hero" evidently had clear framelines, which could flare into the image area. The images of "Hero" in the Reel ID section of Film-Tech show clear framelines on the subtitled frames.

[ 11-30-2004, 07:15 AM: Message edited by: John Pytlak ]

Posted by Barry Martin (Member # 1376) on 11-29-2004, 11:03 PM:

I've noticed that with some of the independent/art/foreign films we've had that were subtitled. The white lines would be present on top and/or bottom only while subtitles were on screen, then disappear. I guess I thought this might have been a result of poor subtitle processing. For instance in "Strayed" a.k.a. "Les Egares" there was a credit in subtitle form at the end for the person responsible for doing the subtitles. Are these subtitles added in when the original prints are being sent oversees and as a result of this process the white lines are added as well for some reason?

Posted by Edward Jurich (Member # 1787) on 11-30-2004, 04:09 PM:

quote: Jason M Miller
Well I called our booking department on replacing it, they called the company and said that they have had so many complaints about it that they could not replace them all

With so many complaints, sounds like sloppy splices. Passion was the same, could frame out most of the sloppy splices but a few still showed.