Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Upper image cropping: What's the cause?

This is topic Upper image cropping: What's the cause? 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=006902

Posted by Jarryd Beard (Member # 2543) on 01-23-2005, 07:53 PM:

Last night a couple of us went to the Loews Theatre in Pittsburgh to see Phantom of the Opera. I assume there was a different movie playing before our show; just before Phantom started, the masking changed from flat to scope. However, throughout all of the show (pre-show as well), the upper 1/8 of the screen was black. I couldn't tell if the image was cut off or simply squished. While I'm leaning towards a complete cropping of the upper 1/8 of the image, the fact that complete changeover/motor cues images were present makes me think otherwise. Wouldn't the cues be closer to the top of the film? Image cropping seems to suggest the flat aperture accidently being left in the projector, but wouldn't that crop the bottom of the picture as well?

I'm just kinda curious as to what may a been that cause of this problem among others. (One of the others big problems of the presentation was the fact that the feature was presented completely in analog sound. Unless, of course, Schumacher intended for the phonograph-like soundtrack present throughout the entire film... and pops between splices. [bs]

)

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-23-2005, 11:26 PM:

Was the image bleeding over the bottom masking the same amount that was missing at the top? If so, the turret did not land in it's proper position.

If not, then the masking motor's stop points has drifted and needs to be reset.

Posted by Jarryd Beard (Member # 2543) on 01-23-2005, 11:45 PM:

Oh, sorry, I did mean to mention that. There was no bleeding over of the image on to the masking below the screen. I made a note to check on that. Also, the masking moved horizontally, not vertically. Therefore, I don't know why image height would ever change on the screen. Some scenes in the move almost did suggest that something was being cut off the picture. For instance, too much of a person's head was missing.

Quick question though: I've never dealt with any type of turret or auto-turret (We manually swap lenses) on projectors, but how is the aperture plate changed between scope and flat when the lens changes? Can't a lens change be automated between, say a flat trailer and a scope feature?

Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 01-24-2005, 01:04 AM:

Many theatres (mine included) have double masking systems. When the film is in scope, the upper masking decends, and the side maskings open out. Sometimes if the upper masking motor goes bad (only happened once in the 3 years I've worked here), the top masking will stay in flat mode, and remain up, while the side maskings open out. A good way to check if the film itself is correct is to hold a dollar bill out. The scope image should be roughly the same shape.

Posted by Aaron Sisemore (Member # 145) on 01-24-2005, 01:53 AM:

quote: Jarryd Beard
Quick question though: I've never dealt with any type of turret or auto-turret (We manually swap lenses) on projectors, but how is the aperture plate changed between scope and flat when the lens changes?

Usually there is a long metal aperture plate with both the flat and scope holes in it, and the proper hole is slid into position either by a solenoid or a motor as the turret is changing lenses.

quote: Jarryd Beard
Can't a lens change be automated between, say a flat trailer and a scope feature?

Yes.

-Aaron

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 01-24-2005, 03:22 AM:

...if this was an older LCE complex, they probably had 1050's with Tu-2000's, which have the motorized turrets, motorized aperture change, double set maskings and going through Strong's infamouss CP-10 computerized automation.

I play with three theatres with this setup, only thing is that we've converted the Tu-2000's to manual by taking out all of that motorized jazz.

After awhile, those turrets love to get out of alignment with the flat/scope turret vertical stops getting all astrewed, the lateral settings eventually gets knocked out with all of the rotation. Plus, the turret close stops, which are those mylar bolt heads, can be getting pushed back in to get out of alignment out as well.

Then finally,the turret bearings, which are those very small bearings located in the three-120 degree positions, takes a beating as well and will fail causing the turret disk to start to tilt forward.

Then, we can get to wonder on the actual motor actions as well with those couplers getting tired, which drives the spur/worm gear setup for opening and closing. The aperture jogging motor getting tired, or the aperture getting a bit warped due to excessive heating, being a one piece aperture plate with both openings.

For on cue command by the CP-10, the turret opens, lens rotate, masking shifts and aperture shifts to the preference, turret closes, all within 20 plus feet of black leader spliced inbetween the flat trailers and scope feature.

When the system works, it's quite the interesting thing to watch.

-Monte

Posted by Rick Raskin (Member # 1561) on 01-24-2005, 03:24 PM:

I suspect the lens changed over to scope but the plate failed to do so. Is that feasable? I am suprised they let the film run through that way. BTW, didn't anyone complain?

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 01-24-2005, 04:02 PM:

one of our prints had bad srd on one reel so we played it analog for its run (no replacement was forthcoming). it sounded fine. that is, no worse than the digital when it wasn't hiccuping.

it sounds to me like the top masking failed to descend when it should have. if the 1.85 aperture had been in the picture would have been very skinny--a 1:3.7 ratio.

carl

Posted by Jarryd Beard (Member # 2543) on 01-24-2005, 04:14 PM:

quote: Rick Raskin
I suspect the lens changed over to scope but the plate failed to do so. Is that feasable? I am suprised they let the film run through that way. BTW, didn't anyone complain?

That was my first thought too, especially since the masking changed from flat to scope before the show started. However, a flat aperture plate crops the bottom as well; this wasn't the case. At first I thought the plates may have travelled vertically instead of horizontally in the projector. I thought maybe it got jammed in its movement. Thanks to some posts and studying of manuals online, I realize that the long plate has two holes and travels horizontally.

Now it makes sense to me that the masking didn't function properly. The horizontal move was made. but the vertical didn't function. I'd assume these are controlled by different motors if that's true, right? Also, remember how I said the full cues were visible in the corner. The image must not have been cut off if these were completely visible. Perhaps the cinematography did cut off a few heads at times. The fact that something was wrong with the picture may have led me to pay more attention to certain shots than I usually would.

I would have complained, but I waited until the move started in hopes it would go away. I thought maybe the feature was flat and just the pre-show was scope. Once the movie started, I couldn't take myself away from it. (I had to piss for about 1 1 /2 hrs of the movie as well.) Anyway, a manager came it and sat down for about 20 minutes of the movie. If he didn't notice it (he probably runs the booth at some point) I wasn't going to try to convince someone so naive that there was a problem.

Full list of presentation issues noted during this show: masking malfunction (sounds oddly familiar), no digital sound, poor focus, very unstable image, slight ghosting, extreme bulb flicker.

[ 01-24-2005, 08:31 PM: Message edited by: Jarryd Beard ]

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 01-25-2005, 02:00 AM:

quote:
no digital sound, poor focus, very unstable image, slight ghosting, extreme bulb flicker, et.al.

...sounds a-typical for a LOWES/LCE, and almost any of the large circuit's Manager/"Bozo" run operations.

Kinda like all of the Bozos have a standard of operational procecures which curtails all of the above mentioned.

Gee, wonder who came up with this brainy standards of operations anywho?

Wonder if one head BOZO, who is the King of BOZOLAND wrote this manual for all of the other Bozos and any prospective Bozos to follow and to obey. (lol)

Glad, we all are not responsible and for any of the input of this BOZO manual.

Definitely shows who's smart and who's the Bozo.

(okey, I'm getting mean here...lol)

Could be that one of the masking motors popped the reset switch back behind the screen, motor froze up, masking drawstrings all tangled up behind..anything can be possible with double maskings being two motors doing all of this.

-Monte

Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 01-25-2005, 07:45 AM:

quote: Jarryd Beard
While I'm leaning towards a complete cropping of the upper 1/8 of the image, the fact that complete changeover/motor cues images were present makes me think otherwise. Wouldn't the cues be closer to the top of the film? Image cropping seems to suggest the flat aperture accidently being left in the projector, but wouldn't that crop the bottom of the picture as well?

The placement of cue marks is nowadays the same for all ratios, i.e. the cue is punched in the same position with reference to the right-hand edge of the film (viewed Heads Up, track on the left), and the top frameline. Therefore, a Scope film projected with a Scope lens but with a Flat plate could still display complete cues.

Also, it is not necessarily the case that a Flat plate will equally crop the top and bottom of a Scope image. Sometimes, the apertures can be lined up with a common top or bottom edge, so that on Scope, the top or bottom portion of the screen can be blank (I've seen it!). In that case, the image also has to be racked in the gate. However, all this would lead to much more than 1/8 of the image being lost from the top of the screen, so I'm fairly sure that's not the problem here.

There were no photography issues that I remember on "Phantom of the Opera". Perhaps the Scope setup is cropped in that theatre, requiring re-framing of the images between Flat and Scope. If there's a skeleton or inexperienced staff it's possible the racking move wasn't done when it should have been, coupled with top masking failure as others have mentioned.

Also, I wouldn't necessarily agree that lack of digital sound is a presentation issue! Dolby SR can sound fantastic in a properly set up and equipped theatre.

Posted by Jarryd Beard (Member # 2543) on 01-25-2005, 09:43 AM:

I agree with your feelings on Dolby SR. We only have DTS in three out of six screens. Two of those other auditoriums have mono sound (Smart HF100s) and one has a mono front/surround setup (Smart HF100/HF102). These systems sound great. In the front/surround setup, I've forgotten I wasn't in a digital house. Loews' system, on the other hand, was just horrible. You'd have to cringe at every high or loud note. The quiet scenes had tremendous background noise.

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 01-25-2005, 10:25 AM:

BOZO was a beloved and cherished character of Children's television not only by myself, but by all of Chicagoland and the rest of the country. Please don't disrespect BOZO (may God rest his soul, the first one) by comparing him to know-nothing corporate theater hacks. [Smile]

I think Mike had it the closest... the top masking just never came down, and the manager that sat in the movie for 20 minutes (does it take that long to check a screen??) didn't care. "Oh well. Masking didn't work. Cant' do nothing now. Nobody complained so it should be fine. Cancel the call to the tech to save us money since it's apparently not bothering the customers." he thought to himself as you contemplated complaining.

=TMP=