This is topic Trailers for "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" 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=007119

---

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 04-17-2005, 05:41 PM:
 
Has anyone besides me noticed that the trailers for "Hitchhiker's Guide" stand out as being exceedingly sharp and detailed? I've seen 2 different versions of the trailer, at 2 different theaters, and both times I thought they looked WAY better than any other trailers or even the feature. It's almost like the difference between SD and HD. The obvious question is why doesn't 35mm *always* look that good.
 

---

Posted by Adam Wilbert (Member # 1184) on 04-18-2005, 01:27 PM:
 
42... 'nuff said, I think.
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 04-19-2005, 10:53 AM:
 

quote: Adam Wilbert

---

42... 'nuff said, I think.

---

quote:

---

For the laboratory, VISION Color Intermediate Film (2242) enable the production of printing elements that are closer in quality to the look of a print made directly from the original negative.

Postproduction facilities will appreciate the features of the VISION Color Intermediate Films (2242), especially improved sharpness for digital output. They're the choice for production of masters for theatrical re-release, video and DVD release, satellite, cable or broadcast TV presentation - or use in any media of the future.

And, audiences will also see the difference - in movies that tell stories with fewer distractions, films with fewer physical imperfections.

---

[ 04-19-2005, 01:37 PM: Message edited by: Adam Martin ]
 

---

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 04-19-2005, 01:31 PM:
 
The difference in image quality between these trailers and almost everything else that was running on either side of it was VERY apparent. It wasn't like I was looking for it either -- it just jumped out.
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 04-19-2005, 01:34 PM:
 
Maybe the 2242 duplicate negatives were recorded directly from a 4K Digital Intermediate?
 

---

Posted by Larry Myers (Member # 738) on 04-19-2005, 02:52 PM:
 
Hi

There was a big feature on Time last year about trailers. They called them more or less bait and switch. Meaning, the trailers are far better in quality and interest then the movie itself.

One reason is the use of a special production crew just to do trailers. This means hand selected cameras, special takes that don't make it into the movie, processing in separate labs with high quality standards, slow speed printing right off the negative, high paid techs that handle the film. So on and so on.

Larry
 

---

Posted by Adam Wilbert (Member # 1184) on 04-19-2005, 03:19 PM:
 
hold on a tic,

am I seeing a corrolation between the vision stock codes and the Hitchiker's answer to the ultimate question of Life, the Universe and Everything? Interesting!

quote: kodak

---

KODAK VISION Color Intermediate Film
5242 / 7242 / 2242 / 3242

---

 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 04-19-2005, 04:21 PM:
 
Kodak has had the answer to the ultimate question for many years! It used to be a camera reversal film used for newsgathering (7242), and now it is Intermediate: "42".
 

---

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 04-19-2005, 05:13 PM:
 
7242? Holy smokes, I thought that was discontinued years ago and replaced by VNF stock?

Are the specs the same as the original camera reversal stock? (ME-4?)

I would have thought they would use something like 5252/7252 before 5242/7242 or even my favorite reversal 5256/7256.
 

---

Posted by Dominic Case (Member # 1830) on 04-19-2005, 09:45 PM:
 

quote: Phil Hill

---

7242? Holy smokes, I thought that was discontinued years ago

---

So it was, Phil, as were all the other stocks you mentioned.

7242 is now the number for one of the family of intermediate stocks, for making IPs and DN (dupe negs).
2242 = 35mm polyester base
3242 = 16mm polyester base
5242 = 35mm acetate base
7242 = 16mm atetate base

But this has been around for a few years now. DOn't see why it should make so much difference, unless it's the postproduction method of making the trailer. Many are now edited in HD (not even digital 2K) and transferred back to film: perhaps this one was done the proper way: but even then it shouldn't look any different from the feature.

I guess only some of us picked Adam's "42" reference. You either get Hitchhiker jokes or you don't.

Don't Panic.
 

---

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 04-19-2005, 10:13 PM:
 
Dominic, sorry for being my usual dumbass self here, but I'm totally confused.

Is there now a NEW Intermediate stock using the OLD designation of 7242 that is different than the original Ektachrome reversal camera stock or is it still in production but with a new "purpose"?
 

---

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 04-19-2005, 10:19 PM:
 
Wish someone could take a critical look at one of these trailers and see if you corroborate my observation, or tell me I'm full of .
 

---

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 04-19-2005, 10:50 PM:
 
I noticed that the trailers for the Herbie movie were very sharp.
 

---

Posted by Brian Michael Weidemann (Member # 2243) on 04-20-2005, 05:43 AM:
 
Herbie is "53". It doesn't work. It's all about "42"

The only Hitchhiker's trailer I've really watched is the DLP one on our Sin City, so its crispness or lack thereof is due to completely different reasons, I would imagine. Impressive, nonetheless, though.
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 04-20-2005, 12:44 PM:
 
Phil:

Kodak recycles the numbers that designate film type (those four digit numbers are used on all product lines, and only about a hundred are unique to motion picture films).

Here is a link to the Chronology of Kodak Motion Picture Films, citing the 7242 you remember from your work in television:

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/about/chrono3.shtml

quote:

---

1966: KODAK EKTACHROME EF film, 7242. Tungsten, EI 125. Process ME-4. Replaced 7258. Discontinued 1986.

---

quote:

---

2001: KODAK VISION Color Intermediate Film 5242 / 2242 - Replacement for 5244 / 2244

---

quote:

---

To KENNETH L. TINGLER, CHARLES C. ANDERSON, DIANE E. KESTNER and BRIAN A. SCHELL of the Eastman Kodak Company for the successful development of a process-surviving antistatic layer technology for motion picture film. This technology successfully controls the static charge buildup on processed intermediate and sound negative films during high speed printing operations. [Laboratory]

---

So Kodak has had the Hitchiker's answer to the ultimate question of Life, the Universe and Everything for many years: "42".

I haven't seen the trailer on a big screen yet, but I suspect the printing negative may have been a direct output from a 4K Digital Intermediate. The difference between 2K and 4K is usually obvious on a 35mm film projected on a big screen, and 4K begins to approach direct print quality.
 

---

Posted by Dominic Case (Member # 1830) on 04-20-2005, 10:30 PM:
 

quote: John Pytlak

---

Kodak recycles the numbers that designate film type

---

This is good stuff from Kodak.

THe world is rapidly getting polluted with numbers. I blame much of this on "lossy" compression, much favoured by the digital video people, whereby 90% or more of all the numbers in every frame are simply discarded, with no thought of the damage they might do in the wrong place.

While recycling old film stock numbers is only a drop in the ocean, it shows that Kodak have realised that every number counts.
 

---

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 04-20-2005, 10:55 PM:
 
Thanks John! I now "get it"...
 

---

Posted by Kevin Wale (Member # 1851) on 04-20-2005, 11:16 PM:
 

quote: John Pytlak

---

I haven't seen the trailer on a big screen yet, but I suspect the printing negative may have been a direct output from a 4K Digital Intermediate. The difference between 2K and 4K is usually obvious on a 35mm film projected on a big screen, and 4K begins to approach direct print quality.

---

quote:

---

...Digital mastering for a feature film usually implies an output to film. This potential is causing more post people than ever to wonder what it is that makes one film recording process different (and possibly better) than another. The truth is, the verdict is still out on which is better (the never-ending laser vs. CRT debate, for example), but one thing never changes--the machine that goes "bing" is still only as good as the people who run it....

---

quote:

---

In the last year or two, the price of scanning film and recording it back to celluloid has come down so much that it is now economically feasible to bring an entire show into the digital domain, work with it there and record it out, ready for printing in the laboratory. The term "digital intermediate" has come to be used for this process, and though it is still so new that in some cases it is being redefined with each show, the fundamental creative and technical advantages may soon make it a standard part of post-production for many features....

Digital intermediate technology is evolving quickly, and prices are expected to come down as new and faster equipment becomes available. Thomson is currently developing the Spirit DataCine 2, to be released in October. It is said to make true 2K scans in 14-bit RGB at a rate of 30 frames per second, as well as 4K scans at 6 to 8 fps. Other high-speed, high-resolution scanners are in the works from Sony, Cintel, ITK and others....

---