Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Buying Test Loops

This is topic Buying Test Loops 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=007599

Posted by Richard Edward Wells III (Member # 2990) on 11-09-2005, 03:53 PM:

I have told my supervisors at my theater that we need the test film so that I can accurately focus all of our projectors, and after a month, we still don't have it. I just want to know if there is anywhere I can go online myself and order some SMPTE RP40 film? I've searched quite a few dealers and all of the ones that I could buy from myself have not had the test film.

Posted by Christian Volpi (Member # 2370) on 11-09-2005, 05:32 PM:

Test film such as RP40 is very expensive...I wouldn't recommend buying it out of your own pocket. If the management doesn't want to shell out the money then they will suffer in the long run with reduced admissions sales due to poor presentation. Just do the best you can until you get some test film.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 11-09-2005, 05:35 PM:

try ordering 35-PA instead

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 11-09-2005, 07:14 PM:

Presently the SMPTE is back ordered on this film. Try buying from a technically based dealer who stocks this in depth. Louis

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 11-09-2005, 09:59 PM:

quote: Gordon McLeod
try ordering 35-PA instead

True, the "RP-40" is the text documentation that comes with the 35-PA test film (but of course, all of us tekkies refer the loop as the "RP-40" and got away with it all of these years..). True also, the 35-PA film is about 2 to 5 bucks a foot being first generation camera negative on ACETATE stock. So, if you get a 10ft roll of this stuff, do take care of it.

-Monte

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-09-2005, 10:36 PM:

You're proposing using 35-PA for focusing???

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 11-09-2005, 10:38 PM:

Monte If someone ordered from me rp40 they would get the text document
Do you relise the amount of incorrectly ordered parts theatre place because they assume you know what they are talking about
If you want part x then oreder it by the correct part number and testfilms and the likeas are no different

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-09-2005, 10:46 PM:

So if someone ordered "10 feet of RP40" from your company Gordon, you would ship them the RP40 paper knowing damn good and well they meant the PA35 film??? That's kind of mean. [Razz]

Posted by Steve Scott (Member # 630) on 11-09-2005, 11:21 PM:

Let alone ten feet of it... Damn! [Smile]

Posted by Dan Lyons (Member # 1454) on 11-10-2005, 12:48 AM:

quote: Monte L Fullmer
True also, the 35-PA film is about 2 to 5 bucks a foot being first generation camera negative on ACETATE stock.

You must have some OLD loops. My roll is on polyester stock.

quote:
I have told my supervisors at my theater that we need the test film so that I can accurately focus all of our projectors,

I use it to set framing and cut plates. Even if you have the loop focused, when you run a film you'll have to re-focus.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 11-10-2005, 03:18 AM:

(lol yep, got some old SMPTE RP-40 loops... [Smile]

)

..On focusing with the RP-40 (35PA - the newer issue of this same loop), this loop is good for when aligning and focusing in the anamorphic attachment to the screen with the crosshairs on the loop.

Also, look into the reverse of the 35PA, (which I don't know the release number) which is black on white. This aids in fine tuning out the shutter ghosts when doing the shutter timing.

-Monte

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 11-10-2005, 03:49 AM:

quote: Monte L Fullmer
Also, look into the reverse of the 35PA, (which I don't know the release number) which is black on white. This aids in fine tuning out the shutter ghosts when doing the shutter timing.

So does the end of many trailers that have lots of white (clear) titles at the end. The difference is they're essentially free.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-10-2005, 04:13 AM:

Agreed, just rack the framing enough out so that you can see the white text trails. Works better than RP40 or PA35 in my opinion.

Posted by Dominic Espinosa (Member # 2122) on 11-11-2005, 02:40 PM:

Unfortunately for us, our 35PA is so trashed it's almost useless for anything but cutting aperture plates and setting framing/masking.

I offer my "ghetto" bandaid solutions:
Use a loop of full screen credits such as at the end of the Jarhead trailer (which by the way was incredibly steady on most prints) for dialing out shutter ghost.

Use a loop of hard matt'd green band from a FLAT trailer for a SCOPE movie to center up your framing.

Use loops of the really bright green band from a hard matt'd SCOPE trailer for a FLAT movie to adjust your scope lenses.
It's not ideal but I remember reading about it here on FT at one point and have had limited success with it in my experience.

And of course, the usual disclaimer. If you're unsure about anything, don't do it until you are!

Good luck.

Posted by Luci Reeve (Member # 3651) on 05-13-2006, 05:02 PM:

I've tried to focus using the 35PA black & white and then had to adjust when the movie started...I was told the 35PA was thinner than color stock. So I usually focus with a loop of credits. But I would like to own a color 35PA loop. I saw one once so I know it's out there. If anyone knows how to acquire some I'd really appreciate it.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-13-2006, 06:43 PM:

SMPTE is nothing short of a joke as far as its test film department goes. There is simply no excuse for it either in this day of ESTAR base film which does not change dimension sitting on the shelf.

Get your target and sound alignment films from NT Audio Visual. Their sound alignment film, Pink Noise, Tone, and Buzz is the best available period. The pink noise is dead on so be sure to throw your old inconsistant dolby p.n. loops in the trash! I have yet to do a critical comparison of N-T's target and RP-40 but the sample I received looked excellent and is camera original, targeted for aligning systems and filing plates of all common sizes. Contact Edel Adam for purchases, Tel 310.828.1098 .

Mark

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 05-13-2006, 07:53 PM:

First off...35-PA is not different dimensionally though it is shot on BH-1866 film so it may be used with Telecine machines. I have long claimed that the film should be available in standard KS-1870 as well as BH-1866, depending on one's needs.

The magenta film is known as 35-IQ SMPTE has always packaged it as 100' of B&W and 100' of Magenta. The reason for both films is to see the difference in your projection system between the radiant energy absorbed between the two (B&W soaking up more heat than just the top layer of color film). Both films were shot in the same camera with only the allowance for the perforation difference made. Details are given in the 35-IQ (and 70-IQ) instructions.

One can splice the two together and note the difference in the focus between the two to get an idea of how much heat one is putting into the system...the closer the focus matches, the lower the heat.

As for dimensions...historically, you could not do better than the SMPTE test films...they are camera originals. The to test the camera, the image is photographed forward, then backward, then forward again to verify perfect registration on a period basis.

Why does some test film not show good steadiness? This comes down to how the film is photographed and how it is projected (true for not just test films). Cameras (and Telecines) register off of the perforations. Projectors register off of the edges of the film (laterally). What happens if the film to perforation registration is not perfect? The image moves about. Virtually all of the image unsteadiness in various batches of 35-PA can be attibuted to either mis-slitting or more commonly, skewed perforations. One has to get the film under a microscope to measure the perf to edge relationship in a perf-by-perf fashion.

Generally, the 35-IQ is a much steadier film since the polyester film came into existance. The B&W film tends to have more skewed perfs. One reason 35-PA has been so expensive (and there are many reasons) is the low-volume, high-reject rate and that it is camera original. Note, you don't get to see if your batch is good until after it is all shot and processed.

If you can buy target film for the under $2/ft price...there is a reason...it is not measured nor guaranteed to be anything and most likely a duplicated film. That is okay for checking focus, I guess but it totally and completely worthless as an alignment aid. It would be like trying to use an uncalibrated meter (and you don't know how far it is off) to make adjustments to an electrical circuit.

As to the sound test films...Dolby has definately not been producing worthy products since they went to color. The HF response on their pink noise has been horrible and inconsistant.

About the only thing they are really good for is to check Dolby Digital alignment IF you know how far off your test film is. We resorted to buying 1000' feet of it and then measuring it against reference film to come up with an offset. That has worked out quite well for us. For analog, NTAV is probably the best, after all, they were the last ones to actually make accurate stuff before (they made the twin track Cat. 69).

As for Buzz-Track...the Buzztrack that SMPTE was providing was VERY accurate, more so than it had been as it was shot in the same camera that did 35-PA and it was measured to be correct. Some didn't like the frame overlap that caused noise in the sound...personally, I liked that artifact since it provided a "blip" on both scope traces as well as an audible verification that everything was on and picking up...it was clearly different than the two tones one is listening/looking for.

Steve

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-14-2006, 08:01 AM:

quote: Steve Guttag
As for dimensions...historically, you could not do better than the SMPTE test films...they are camera originals. The to test the camera, the image is photographed forward, then backward, then forward again to verify perfect registration on a period basis.

I would be willing to bet that the NTAV is as good as the SMPTE target and as accurate. It is camera original and is over 2.00 a foot cost but still below the SMPTE stuff. NTAV did their target film because a large national chain was desperate for target alignment film.

As for foreword/reverse camera exposure tests this is nothing special at all, is very commonly done.... sometimes done a bit more often for highly important cameras in use. Its also done on all film prodiction cameras after any repairs are done, before they leave the rental house(say Panavision), before any sort of important film is shot by a production crew. I've also seen it done midway during a feature production on several occasions where live action takes are going to be combined with effects shots. All in all its very S.O.P.

quote: Steve Guttag
One has to get the film under a microscope to measure the perf to edge relationship in a perf-by-perf fashion.

Actually an optical comparator with the right optics and screen overlay is the best for this sort of thing. It can be used to verify the target size/position/skew, etc., and the optical tracks size/position, etc. There are also highly accurate video optical comparators in use that increase the ability to accurately check dimensions even more over the direct view type.

Mark

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 05-14-2006, 08:07 AM:

It would not surprise me that NTAV would make a good film...that is their reputation. SMPTE's films get expensive partly due to their 100% mark up of whatever source they pay. So something approaching $3.00/foot directly from the source would make sense.

BTW...there is nothing wrong with someone making an exact 35-PA target (without the SMPTE name on it). The RP40 document describes how to make it...that is the purpose of the document.

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 05-14-2006, 09:52 AM:

Instead of speculating, perhaps someone should ask NTAV what their QC process is like?

--jhawk

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 05-14-2006, 06:38 PM:

No one should take my comments about the quality of the SMPTE products to take anything away from NTAV...in fact NTAV has been the source of some SMPTE products in the past as well as Dolby's only reliable test films in the past.

NTAV is known for making excellent products. Those that have tested the NTAV test films have come back completely with superior results. As for their target...I have not seen it but be sure that if I try it out I will compare it to existing 35-PA or 35-IQ to verify that it is correct.

Posted by Nicholas Grieco (Member # 3408) on 05-18-2006, 03:27 AM:

I have been informed by Anne Seminara at the SMPTE that 35-IQ is out of production for lack of demand.

Posted by Shawn Jones (Member # 3797) on 05-20-2006, 12:33 AM:

Hello All,

I am the Chief Engineer at NT Audio and supervise the production of our test films. Hopefully the following will answer some of your questions regarding the manufacturing and quality control of our products.

The sound test films - NT Buzz, NT Tone, & NT Pink - are all camera original films produced with a laser recorder we developed for our optical soundtrack negatives. Our recorder creates the necessary patterns to produce a postive soundtrack image onto Kodak 2376 B&W sound negative film. This film stock is KS-1870 peforated on the same polyester base as the vision print stocks. We develop the test films in our lab and monitor all of the control aims. Once the film is processed, the dimensions are checked at several points in the reel under the microscope. We then run all of the audio film we sell on our reference optical reproducer and check the necessary sound parameters with an Audio Precision. The goal is to keep any variances to less than 0.1 dB.

We are also finishing development of a replacement RP40 / 35PA film that some of you have mentioned. We created samples prior to Showest that we sent to potential customers for feedback. Based on the comments, we are in the process of making most of the requested changes. The final product will be a camera original film and will be produced on a KS-1870 peforated polyester film. The camera we use is pin-registered with an ACME step movement. The dimensional characteristics will meet the specifications outlined by SMPTE etc..

The goal is to make the product as close as possible to the 35PA/RP40 everyone is using while keeping the cost down in the $2-$3/foot range.

We hope to have the film ready in limited quantities by the first week of June. If you have further technical questions, please send me an email or contact Edel Adams at (310) 828-1098 for any sales info.

Posted by Richard Hamilton (Member # 321) on 05-23-2006, 09:17 AM:

35-PA from SMPTE is available now. Clyde McKinney started making it a few months ago. To get the industry standard, you have to buy it through SMPTE.

quote: Steve Guttag
BTW...there is nothing wrong with someone making an exact 35-PA target (without the SMPTE name on it). The RP40 document describes how to make it...that is the purpose of the document.

This is available also, without crossing any copyright laws. I was thinking of something that said "Hamilton Technical Services" Or "Rick was here", and leaving loops at all the theaters I service!

Rick

Posted by Christian Appelt (Member # 1067) on 05-23-2006, 10:17 AM:

Dealers should also be able to get the Schneider Lens Test Film, but I have no idea about the present price. I have used Schneider loops for years.

Full resolution image can be downloaded here:

Schneider Lens test Film

quote:
* MTF test patterns (up to 100 LP/mm) are located at areas that are critical for anamorphic evaluation, as well as for flat lenses.
* The horizontal and vertical grid allow evaluation of lens distortion as well as keystoning and curved screen geometric distortion.
* The high contrast black background reveals excess projector heat problems. It also shows lens chromatic aberration clearly.
* All common formats are shown, with their inch and metric units readily visible, for filing plates.
* The high contrast of this Test Film is ideal for evaluating lens flare and veiling glare.
* Format dimensions correspond to SMPTE recommended practices and standards.

Available in 50, 100, and 200 feet.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-23-2006, 07:28 PM:

quote: Richard Hamilton
Clyde McKinney started making it a few months ago.

Humm.... Clyde seems to be a man of any talent... All I can think of is the pile of el crapo Peavey equipment he deposited here in Salt Lake City.... He sure left his mark here.....

Mark

Posted by Richard Hamilton (Member # 321) on 05-24-2006, 08:03 AM:

Mark, did something bad happen to you at Jordon Commons? [Razz]

I'm not sure he was involved with that theater except for the Mega booth. The Cinema Acoustics wasn't that bad was it?

I left my mark in Salt Lake City last week at the new District 20 plex. Dont say anything bad about it, or I'll have to come kick your ass next time I'm there! [Big Grin]

Rick

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 05-24-2006, 08:20 AM:

Yep...Peavey is that bad! OK for the carnival or PTA, though. Louis

Posted by Richard Hamilton (Member # 321) on 05-24-2006, 08:37 AM:

quote: Louis Bornwasser
Yep...Peavey is that bad! OK for the carnival or PTA, though. Louis

Really? I've installed their Media Matrix line all over the world in special venues with no problems. I haven't done any carnivals or PTAs yet, but I'd probably just run to Radio Shack for those jobs. [Wink]

Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 05-24-2006, 02:51 PM:

WTF is PTA? Like school?

Mark's comment on Clyde is a bit over the line. We all have to make a living and sometimes get our hands dirty doing less than top shelf stuff. I never heard tell of him selling RGM, TECO or such, and we've all gotten dirty messing wih some variant of Ballantyne so chill already.

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 05-24-2006, 03:16 PM:

I have worked with Clyde on many 870 and 1570 theatres and domes, designs, installations and other projects and he is a very technically talented and biz savvy guy that "gets it" in the real world. Bottom Line: He's a good guy and should be respected and NOT dissed!

I too have installed many Media Matrix systems worldwide and I really like their flexibility and quality. However the only other thing Peavey makes that's half decent is guitar amps! I have a "Bandit" for use with my 1982 Strat. [beer]

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 05-24-2006, 04:17 PM:

My view on the Media Matrix is definatley mixed...It is a very powerful system but not nearly reliable enough for me. Without exception, it has to be rebooted periodically...some BOBs will stop working or other glitches...reboot the system and everything plays nice once again....it seems to matter not who designed or installed the system.

As to Clyde...definately one of the industry's jewels.

Posted by Richard Fowler (Member # 893) on 05-24-2006, 05:24 PM:

Clyde is a survivor [Cool]

Posted by Richard Hamilton (Member # 321) on 05-24-2006, 05:31 PM:

somehow this thread got on a different subject! To Richard Wells,Test loops are available. If you cant get them, e-mail me, or have your supervisors e-mail me.

About Clyde, It's not my position to defend his credibility, The few responses from the respected people in this industry speak for themself. He is a good friend, so I don't want to get personal.

Rick

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 05-24-2006, 07:17 PM:

I have high respect for Clyde as well

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-24-2006, 08:48 PM:

quote: Richard Hamilton
Mark, did something bad happen to you at Jordon Commons?

No, not to me but to those that own and operate Jordon Commons... Alot of it has since been replaced over time but it has sure cost them alot... and alot in lack of quality when JC opened. I think most of us were quite shocked that the JC people decided to go with Peavey stuff, lack of expereince at the time I guess. Now they wisely use Dolby, JBL, and QSC.

Sam,

I think you know me as a mostly "Chilled" person already... You know that I'm really easy going and mostly too laid back but that sale was a very bad thing and I usually remember bad things like that.... we all do. Its like Sony... I can honestly say that I never sold a single SDDS unit or prompted any of my customers to purchase any of them. I'm glad that I took that attitude.

I don't have any real problem with Clyde.... he is really a great guy overall and made some darn good hand made mag heads years ago. I've seen the NTAV stuff already and use their test films almost daily. They work perfectly and they will always be available off the shelf and by the foot... how ever much you want to buy, thats what the industry has needed for about the last decade. SMPTE just hasn't ever been reliable in that department.

Mark

Posted by Richard Hamilton (Member # 321) on 05-25-2006, 10:19 AM:

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
I think most of us were quite shocked that the JC people decided to go with Peavey stuff, lack of expereince at the time I guess. Now they wisely use Dolby, JBL, and QSC.

Quite shocked?? lack of experience on who's part? Did, or does the Peavey stuff fail? I'm just curious because it is a brand that I know and trust. I wasn't involved with the Commons install, I just want to know for future installs.

LMG didn't use QSC or Peavey in their racks on this last project in SLC, They "Wisely" used a different brand that the consultant/engineer preferred. The "End Result" is great and the popcorn is good, and the customer is happy!

Rick

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 05-25-2006, 01:32 PM:

Peavy is not known for either technical superiority nor reliability. They are generally entry level components that are affordable. I think of them as the SMART Devices of the pro-sound industry. They have a place and many garage bands would have no PA without them but I would never use them in a mission critical situation...that goes for the media matrix as well, which is their most impressive product.

Posted by Richard Hamilton (Member # 321) on 05-25-2006, 03:15 PM:

Steve,
I started writing a post defending Peavey, but you know what? It's not worth it, I don't work for them. A thread about test loops turned into a non-member of this site getting slandered, then a manufacturer getting slammed.

I like "product A" you like "product B" Mark likes "product C", it's endless. Can't we all just get along??? [Wink]

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 05-25-2006, 06:21 PM:

I was merely responding to your question about Peavy. I was not trying to slam Peavy just calling it like it is. Note, the non-member was at the F-T drink at ShoWest and had some wonderful stories he told.

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 05-25-2006, 06:36 PM:

I agree with Steve... I like product "B".

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-25-2006, 06:49 PM:

quote: Richard Hamilton
Quite shocked?? lack of experience on who's part? Did, or does the Peavey stuff fail? I'm just curious because it is a brand that I know and trust.

Yes, many other dealers and techs that I know were very shocked at what went into JC.... like myself I guess everyone in the know about the place when it went up were expecting something very special. In the sound department that was not to be.... but replacement of alot of the Peavey processors with Dolby has certainly made an audible difference in at least some of the auditoriums. It was LM's first theatre.... I'm not sure that from a technical standpoint they knew what they were doing.... they definately learned alot from that building and much better sound equipment was installed in the sibsequent buildings as you know Rick. Alot of deivers failed at JC which has also been my Peavey expereince for the most part. Many stage and most of the surround speakers have been rebuilt with better drivers by RMSW [Smile]

. Peavey stopped support on alot of the cinema products... so good luck. There is also alot of Peavey stuff that was sold by MTE in parts of the Mountain states and it too has been alot of problem and some of it has been replaced with more servicable, reliable, and better performing brands. While we are not a Peavey dealer proper...we wouldn't want any part of them... the local Peavey pro dealer we get our parts through hates them as much as we do.... they classify it as "Dime Store Equipment". Louis is definately right on in his remark about Peavey. As for other brands out there I've literally installed them all and and can live with most of them except for Peavey.

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
Humm.... Clyde seems to be a man of any talent...

You guys need to read again! Its ACTUALLY a compliment.... because its ecxactly what Clyde is.. a man of any talent.... Few in this industry are capable of doing literally anything and there is certainly no one here that can come close to him. Can he save the test film section of SMPTE....? The films will certainly be ok, but will SMPTE allow it to be saved... in reality... probably not.

The Peavey deal was one bad part that just hangs in my mind.... In all fairness his partner at the time Michael Kartozian is also to blame for the Peavey escapades.... we get a badly needed nice new theatre here in SLC and one of the most important aspects of it literally sucks! Yes, it was a big letdown [Eek!]

.

Phil,

Actually product X has the best chance of suceeding to the highest level.

Mark

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 05-25-2006, 07:47 PM:

Ya know Mark, I just don't get you. You ALWAYS seem to SLAM and belittle many industry professionals that have really well respected creditials. It's almost seems like a penis-size thing in that you feel inferior.

I have worked with Mike Karagosian as well as Clyde many times and he too is a real professional. He has done a lot to help our industry starting with his designs of the CP-200.

Here is a brief bio from Digital Hollywood.

quote:

Michael Karagosian, Partner, Karagosian MacCalla Partners, Digital Cinema Consultant, NATO: Michael Karagosian has made significant contributions to both the cinema and theme park industries. He has chaired several committees in the SMPTE DC28 Technology Committee for Digital Cinema, and is a member of the European Digital Cinema Forum (EDCF). He serves as Digital Cinema Consultant to the National Association of Theatre Owners, where he advises on technology and policy. As a partner of Karagosian MacCalla Partners, he advises the UK Film Council in their planned rollout of 250 digital cinema screens in 2004-2005. In 1979, Karagosian created the world's first 5.1 format cinema processor for Dolby Laboratories. His DSP-based surround decoder is used today by studios such as Skywalker Sound, Industrial Light and Magic, and Pixar Animation. He was a founder and former president of Cinema Group, creators of the CinemaAcoustics product line. In theme parks, Karagosian designed show control and sound systems for many themed rides and attractions, and was the first to deploy an ATM network backbone for audio and control distribution in a major Disney theme park.

With all due respect to you Mark, I agree with Sam, you need to chill out.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 05-25-2006, 09:05 PM:

OK every one chill out
Peavey is not all that bad
There are lots of peavey amps that just work away and there are peaveys that fail
the media matrix was the first digital based switching scheme and as such has it share of glitches that others learned from
the CA serries of processors was the first to attempt to do in the digital domain what a CP200 could do and yes it had its issues but so did many of of its successors

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-26-2006, 06:52 PM:

I personally am quite thankful for my new PA35 loops. Without them, my old loops were getting too worn to be able to truly fine tune the astigmatism and balancing the lens focusing in Kinoton projectors via binoculars. [Big Grin]

We all strive to do the best we can, but sometimes things don't quite work out to perfection or we are forced to work around other people's mistakes. (Mark, you can't tell me you have never gone to put in a top notch sound system only to find some bonehead did something stupid in the construction that hurt your acoustics...but you had to do the best you could with what you were given.) Geez, give the guy a break, he's a good guy. [thumbsup]

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 05-30-2006, 09:09 AM:

I know that it has been hard to resupply the hard-to-find loops. That is, properly, the job of your full-service dealer. Yes, I have NEVER run out of loops even during the multi-year Dolby dry spell a while ago. I even loaned them 2000 ft of cat 69.

Now if you guys start a "run" I suppose I will then be out for awhile. Louis

Posted by Clyde Mc Kinney (Member # 3811) on 05-30-2006, 05:24 PM:

Well I finally registered and was just accepted so I could post to this forum. As a rule I don’t comment in this arena, but I have gotten several phone calls and emails and thought I needed to join the discussion.

First there is no picture – I guess I need to get one added.

I was surprised at your comments Mark and frankly I don’t know where you are coming from. First you give me a backhanded compliment and then just slam me and then when challenged you take after Michael. It would seem that there is something else stuck in your craw. As for CinemAcoustics it is a long and somewhat sour subject with me, so I will not get into it. Suffice it to say, there is very good technology in the processor, but the implementation lacked the drive and support that the Dolby staff brought to their version of a digital processor.

I want to thank those who came to my defense and also those who called and emailed me regarding the somewhat aggressive posting by Mark. Frankly the comments I got put Mark not in a very good light. So I am not sure what Mark was trying to accomplish ,but it backfired rather impressively.

Now to the real subject of the thread

I do produce the RP-40/PA-35 test film for SMPTE. I delivered the first product to them in November of last year and have delivered many thousands of feet of film to date. So they have film in stock and I have reserve stock here.

It took me almost a year to get the equipment and process perfected. I have learned a lot about what I thought was going to be a routine project. Like others who have taken on projects, if I knew then what I know now I probably would have thought twice before taking on the project. God knows if I had invested in oil stocks I would be much better off now. It has consumed time and funds far beyond what I anticipated, but I feel that I now produce a product worthy of the SMPTE standard. As Steve Guttag, said the process produces a camera original, shot at low frame rates that is sprocket driven and pin registered. From the lighting source to the alignment of the camera to the lab practices there are many things that are variables and many places where the process can go wrong and that is why you can not get test film at mass production costings of way under $1.00 per foot, like the film companies pay for feature film releases. Producing resolution charts at or near the resolving point of a B&W film stock is not a simple or necessarily predictable process.

The pricing of the film from SMPTE did not change when I took over the production. Yes I can produce state of the art test film charts for $2.00 to $3.00 per foot, which is less then SMPTE sells RP-40 for. The test charts can be used for focus, image stability, shutter ghosting, framing, or plate cutting in both standard feature and Supper 35 framing, with resolution down to the resolving power of the film, but the RP-40/PA-35 is a product of SMPTE and is a world wide standard for the industry and only SMPTE sells what we refer to as RP-40 or PA-35. All other versions of test charts are only that; other versions. They are not SMPTE RP-40/PA-35 test film and should not be labeled, or referred to as such. As Rick so aptly put it, they are Rick’s test film, or Mc-Tech’s test film, or NT Audios test film.

I hope that clears some things up.
[Smile]

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 05-30-2006, 06:34 PM:

Clyde, welcome to Film-Tech. While I haven't talked with you in a long while, I personally am happy to see you here and sincerely hope you will post and share your vast knowledge and expertise with all of the members.

I think you'll find most members here very friendly and not jerks. The only exception, other than myself, that comes to my mind is that Brad Miller... our Grand-Poo-BAH. But, I kiss-up to him since this is his board and he has the power to delete me and/or squish me like an ant!

Again, welcome!

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-30-2006, 08:36 PM:

Clyde, Welconme to Film-Tech! Its about time you check in here [thumbsup]

I had my reasons for what I said believe me. I certainly have great respect for you in all aspects which is what I was getting at in the first comment. The latter comment we will discuss in person some day and I have my reasons for what I said there too. However please accept my appologies for me typing it in this thread.... its something we probably should just have talked about in person some day anyway. Unfortunately others here don't know the reasons nor will they be privy to that, I'd bet that most here really don't even care. My biggest problem sometimes is that I care too much about what goes on and happens here locally.

Keep your posts comming!

Mark

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-30-2006, 09:26 PM:

Phil, have you been in Utah training on posting etiquette with Mark recently? [Razz]

Welcome aboard Clyde. Not to worry, most of us don't bite (Phil excluded, as he bites in his own way).

Posted by Clyde Mc Kinney (Member # 3811) on 05-31-2006, 02:15 AM:

Thanks Brad & Phil for the welcome and I guess I will find out someday what Marks issue is, but for know I will just be contant to read and comment when an issue moves me.

Posted by Richard Hamilton (Member # 321) on 05-31-2006, 07:15 AM:

Hey Clyde! [beer]

Posted by Luci Reeve (Member # 3651) on 06-02-2006, 03:03 PM:

Hi Clyde! Very cool to see you here! On an earlier page I asked about color test loops (Peter Halter had one at the last film festival) and I would love to get one for myself because when I focus using a Black & White loop I have to adjust some when the picture hits the screen (color stock is thicker?) And sometimes there is not enough time between festival screenings to throw on two separate loops per projector---I'd love to have one loop do it all.

Re: your photo...I sent mine in two months ago but I guess there hasn't been time to get it installed.

See you soon I hope!

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 06-05-2006, 09:15 AM:

Welcome Clyde! [thumbsup]

The SMPTE 35-PA is printed on silver image B&W stock. The SMPTE 35-IQ is the same target (specified in SMPTE RP40), but printed on color stock (usually only in the magenta dye layer). They WILL focus differently, as the silver image B&W film absorbs much more infrared energy, and so will have more heat deformation in the gate.

Both the B&W film and color print film are made on 4.7 mil ESTAR support.