Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Pan and Scan 'Painted Veil'

This is topic Pan and Scan 'Painted Veil' 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=008715

Posted by Amanda Mundin (Member # 3386) on 05-16-2007, 11:42 AM:

Just uploaded a digital version of 'The Painted Veil' which starts on Friday onto our QuVis server, in which the aspect ratio is 1.78:1. In phoning the distributor it seems that although the 35mm prints are scope, that when they aquired the digital version from the states they could only get a 1.78:1 digital version and not a scope version for some reason, and there are no 35mm prints available to us at this late stage. The people that made the hard drive copy suggest it is a Pan & Scan version of the original scope image. It's one thing watching a Pan & Scan version on TV but to be sending Pan & Scan versions to cinemas seems shit to say the least.

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 05-16-2007, 12:11 PM:

I haven't heard anything about this, but we're opening it on Friday as well, so I'll try to find out tomorrow what we've been sent. It hadn't arrived yesterday. I'll be running it on Saturday.

Posted by Dick Vaughan (Member # 540) on 05-16-2007, 03:19 PM:

Amanda we hsd exactly the same experience last week. Sadly I didn't get chance to post about it earlier.

Bummer [thumbsdown]

Posted by Caleb Johnstone-Cowan (Member # 3710) on 05-16-2007, 05:29 PM:

That's ridiculous, you should refuse to show it until a 35mm scope print becomes available. Massive balls up by the distributors, surely a secure network connection would get a good copy over here in a day or so?

Posted by Hugh McCullough (Member # 1542) on 05-16-2007, 06:11 PM:

I showed this film about two weeks ago.
I was told that no digital copies were available at that time, and received a 35mm scope print.
Ten minutes after making it up a digital copy arrived.
I loaded (ingested) it onto the dorami server, and tried a rehearsal in scope.
A lovely wedge shaped picture appeared on the screen.
Then I tried 1.78:1 and it appeared to fit W/S perfectly.
Unfortunately I was unable to view the film in digital as I had to go and work at another cinema, and show Painted Veil in 35mm

A few weeks ago I was showing 'Curse of the Golden Flower' in digital,
and the BBFC was OK, but got onto the trademark, and the picture went a beautiful red on the left hand side.
Had to turn everything off, and reboot.

Remember that digital is good. Digital is troublefree, or so we are told.

Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 05-16-2007, 07:07 PM:

Any chance it was shot super 35 and they are simply using the extra image top and bottom?

Posted by Ron Curran (Member # 3631) on 05-16-2007, 08:00 PM:

The director and dp would have composed these films for 2.35, whether they shot Super 35 or 4-perf anamorphic.

We are being offered several Scope-shot titles on 16x9 files. So we are waiting (and waiting) for a 35mm prints to become available.

This digital blackmail is being reinforced by the Dolby Digital soundtrack being unplayable on used prints and the non-supply of DTS discs. Take it in digital or wait and hope.

Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 05-17-2007, 01:07 AM:

quote: Ron Curran
The director and dp would have composed these films for 2.35, whether they shot Super 35 or 4-perf anamorphic.

Unless your the director that a hard call to make. The super 35mm production I worked on was duel composed for 1.33 and 16.9 but was only ever seen once in 1.85 for a hollywood opening publicity media screening. TV version was 1.33 and a 35mm print was stored for a future telecine as a future proof.

Posted by Tim Asten (Member # 4051) on 05-18-2007, 05:54 AM:

We have been running the 35mm Scope version of this film for the last 2 weeks, however last night we had an email to send back the print in exchange for the w/s digital copy [Confused]

. Before we had to send the print back which was still playing we loaded up the Christie CP2000 in the adjacent screen (which was between houses) to where the 35mm copy was playing, then we fast forwarded the digital copy till it caught up with the 35mm to see what the differences were side by side. Well it is indeed a pan & scan version with subtle side information missing. The picture though was nice and clear and after watching it for about ten minutes you probably would'nt have gathered that it was meant to be scope if you did'nt already know otherwise. But it still begs the question why was the digital copy in w/s?

Posted by Christian Appelt (Member # 1067) on 05-18-2007, 11:20 AM:

Please note this thread from cinematography.com:
cinematography.com: "Warning - Painted Veil Digital Version"

Cinematographer Adam Frisch wrote to Odeon cinemas complaining about the format and got this answer (quoted from thread above):

quote:
We had a number of pre-release screenings on 35mm and were fully aware that the film was 1:2.40 aspect ratio. After our last pre-release screening we were instructed by Momentum Pictures to send back the 35mm print, as they would be supplying us with a digital copy. On Thursday 26th we received a hard drive with instructions that we were to screen the movie in 1:1.78. On noticing this our projectionist immediately informed Arts Alliance (the company Momentum used to master the movie for our digital servers) who told him that they themselves had informed Momentum and were told by them that this was how they wanted it (our projectionist, like yourself did not agree with this). After viewing the film on Friday night, and confirming that it was a pan and scan version we contacted Momentum and requested a 35mm copy so that it could be shown in its correct ratio. We were told by them that due to being part of the UK Film Council's Digital Screen Network we were contractually obliged to show the movie in the digital format.

So there are some 35mm prints in the correct format, but theatres are contractually obliged to play a digital version with "castrated" aspect ratio? - Very strange indeed!

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 05-18-2007, 12:50 PM:

I popped into the cinema on the way home to spool up the first couple of reels of 'Asterix and the Vikings' for tomorrow morning, and the projectionist on duty confirmed that our copy is 1:1.78.

Under a pile of boxes of trailers was a 400 foot metal can, from the BFI with a pleasant surprise, a brand new print of Len Lye's 'Colourbox', to be shown before one of the features coming up soon. However, the can is labeled 1.85, and the covering letter from the BFI says something like 'as it is a different ratio to the feature, which is 2.39, you should splice it on to the end of yur adverts reel'. Sounds like it might be that silly 1.37 within 1.85 format, which would be a pity.

We do try to show films properly, but distributors don't always make it easy.

I'm going to try to run 'Colourbox tomorrow to have a look at it.

Posted by Ramon Lamarca Marques (Member # 3621) on 05-18-2007, 01:48 PM:

I have read that it has got active pan and scan. It is dreadful to think that anyone related to the world of arts could allow something like this to happen. But video people have always loved pan and scan anyway.

From now on I will make sure that I check with the cinema if they are showing a 35mm or a digital file since it looks that digital files allow distributors to participate in the "creative process" and I am frankly not interested in their input at all.

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 05-18-2007, 04:17 PM:

So, does no one know who to contact to find out the real story with this? Presumably somebody should talk to the prints department (or whatever) at WIP or Bob Yari Productions and find out what actually happened?

Is this purely a UK issue?

--jhawk

Posted by Caleb Johnstone-Cowan (Member # 3710) on 05-18-2007, 06:32 PM:

We have 'Colourbox' playing in digital in front of 'My Best Friend', it is so interesting and visually stunning. It is 1.37 within a 1.85 format on digital, first time I've ever seen a scope change on a DLP.

Like I said above, refuse to show it, since Momentum will lose out on the gross from your cinema and the word-of-mouth for the DVD release. There are other films doing better, like The Lives of Others, that you could show on digital. Distributors shouldn't be using pan and scan.

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 05-18-2007, 06:51 PM:

quote: Caleb Johnstone-Cowan
We have 'Colourbox' playing in digital in front of 'My Best Friend', it is so interesting and visually stunning. It is 1.37 within a 1.85 format on digital, first time I've ever seen a scope change on a DLP.

Yes, 'My Best Friend' that was the film it is to be shown with; I think it's early next month sometime. I don't know whether it will be on film or digital, but 'Colourbox' is on film. What is 'My Best Friend' about, and why is 'Colourbox' being shown with it? 1.37 within 1.85 makes sense with digital, but 1.37 within 1.85, within 1.37 on film makes no sense at all.

I have a feeling that 'Colourbox' was printed in Gasparcolor when first released, but I'm not absoultly certain. This was a silver dye bleach process, in some ways similar to the Cibachrome process for printing from slides, but it was actually printed from separations, and it produced very strong, intense colours.

Posted by Caleb Johnstone-Cowan (Member # 3710) on 05-18-2007, 07:10 PM:

'My Best Friend' is a French comedy. Looks pretty decent, may watch it this weekend. Imagine that the powers that be think that people going to see a limited release French film will appreciate the short, or maybe we're seeing the emergence of a digital 'quota quickie'!

Correct me if I'm wrong but don't you need three lenses if you have the ads/trailers at 1.85, a short at 1.37 and a feature in scope? Most cinemas don't have the capability to do all three in one show.

I'll find out the colour process on Monday if you want.

Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 05-18-2007, 08:01 PM:

Well my 35mm print of "my best friend" is in scope. On screen it looks pretty average, it looks like it was shot digitally?

Are there any real issues with screening scope in digital? Is it a case that these films would be letterboxed in some of the UK's Arts councils installations?

As for Pan and Scan of "Painted Veil" I think I want to be sick!!!

quote: Tim Asten
Well it is indeed a pan & scan version with subtle side information missing

Thankyou Tim.
The reason I questioned if it was a super 35mm issue was because we just recieved a new EC2 server from Atlab for our 720 p projector, which has a very impressive Atlab showreel (Atlab is Australias biggest 35mm lab) Some of the footage shown is fuller frame super 35mm.

Im sure this is info going to piss off many of my cinematographer friends. As for duel composition guidelines, many producers actually hand you written preferences of their prefered approach early in pre production!

quote: Caleb Johnstone-Cowan
Correct me if I'm wrong but don't you need three lenses if you have the ads/trailers at 1.85, a short at 1.37 and a feature in scope? Most cinemas don't have the capability to do all three in one show.

1.33 now tends to come pillarboxed (black bars on the side) for 1.85 lens projection. so only 2 might be required 1.85 and scope

If it is genuine 1.375 the scope backing lens would be closeish, we have a swing in anamorphic!!!

Posted by Amanda Mundin (Member # 3386) on 05-19-2007, 06:24 AM:

Out of interest has anyone shown a digital copy of 'Painted Veil' in the USA?
If there is no theatrical digital copy over there I can only assume that the 16:9 pan & scan version Momentum purchased from the states was made for TV broadcast or similar and they are just being cheap and not bothering to have a proper transfer made.

Posted by Mark Hajducki (Member # 1732) on 05-19-2007, 08:05 AM:

quote: Cameron Glendinning
Are there any real issues with screening scope in digital? Is it a case that these films would be letterboxed in some of the UK's Arts councils installations?

"Lives of Others" is a Scope film that is shown on the UKFC/ Arts Alliance Digital system (although they did not release it/ make the digital prints).

The only issue with scope is the lower resolution compared with 16:9 content.

Posted by Caleb Johnstone-Cowan (Member # 3710) on 05-19-2007, 01:29 PM:

'Lives of Others' looked fine in digital except for the really obvious crap code. The 35mm print we got after moving to a bigger screen looked slightly better although the subtitles weren't as clear. 'My Best Friend' looks terrible up close, really grainy but this doesn't affect the presentation if you're a few rows back.

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 05-19-2007, 05:41 PM:

quote: Caleb Johnstone-Cowan
Correct me if I'm wrong but don't you need three lenses if you have the ads/trailers at 1.85, a short at 1.37 and a feature in scope? Most cinemas don't have the capability to do all three in one show.

Most art-house type cinemas do, but I'm not sure how widely 'My Best Friend' is being distributed. Are they trying to get it, and 'A Colour Box' into mainstream cinemas as well?

I ran it today to have a look at, and because of the way they've printed it you would still need three different formats to run the show with adverts and the feature. I've started a separate thread, to warn anybody else who gets it on 35mm.

quote:
I'll find out the colour process on Monday if you want.

My memory failed me on that one; it was made in Dufaycolor.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 05-19-2007, 05:56 PM:

'Made in' Dufaycolor is possibly a bit problematic. The original element of A Colour Box was raw stock onto which Len Lye painted. This was then duplicated using a very early version of the Dufay negative-positive process (which was additive, not masked coupler, so you can imagine how accurate the colour rendition was), and the resulting Dufay prints used in the original release. When the BFI restored it in the late '90s, they did so by taking the original element (which survives) and contact printing it to a modern Eastmancolor negative. Their justification for this was (i) that Lye would have used a more accurate colour technology if he could have afforded it, and (ii) Dufaycolor no longer exists as a production technology, so there is no way of restoring the Dufay look unless you start with a surviving 1930s release print rather than the original element, and (iii) because the Dufay reseau patten extends over the track area, Dufaycolor prints with soundtracks are very problematic to rerecord. Sound quality issues were part of what sunk Dufay as a mass-duplication format in the first place (as distinct from a home movie reversal medium, for which it was very successful and enjoyed strong sales throughout the 30s and 40s).

So, if you're seeing a print from the BFI's restoration, there was actually no Dufaycolor involved anywhere in the production process, despite what it says on the opening titles!

Another Len Lye short, Rainbow Dance, was duplicated and printed using Gasparcolor, as Stephen mentions.

Posted by Caleb Johnstone-Cowan (Member # 3710) on 05-19-2007, 08:59 PM:

quote: Stephen Furley
Are they trying to get it, and 'A Colour Box' into mainstream cinemas as well?

Looking at the LondonNet listings the cinemas it is showing in aren't really 'mainstream'. Maybe there will be an expansion of sites but who knows.

Posted by Michael Moore (Member # 3867) on 05-19-2007, 09:21 PM:

I though I had problems with my Scope lens after showing "lives of Others" this past week! I could focus the whole thing in well but subtitles were horrible. They looked bold some times and normal other times, and sometimes some words look blurry while others were fine. Reel one on my print was the worst out of all for sub titles, while reel 7 looked fine; very inconsistent. I projected "Painted Veil" a while back and it look fine to me and was in scope. Strange that the Digital format did not preserve the scope format. Well you know money drives everything now, not art integrity, nor quality!

Mike

Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 05-19-2007, 11:00 PM:

Strange about "lives of others" My print is very good! Subtitles are very sharp.
I realigned the lenses during the first days of release, before that I had exactly the same problem micheal described above.But only in one of our two screens.

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 05-20-2007, 02:18 AM:

quote: Caleb Johnstone-Cowan
'Lives of Others' looked fine in digital except for the really obvious crap code.

digital shows have crap code too?

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 05-20-2007, 05:36 AM:

quote:
'Made in' Dufaycolor is possibly a bit problematic. The original element of A Colour Box was raw stock onto which Len Lye painted. This was then duplicated using a very early version of the Dufay negative-positive process (which was additive, not masked coupler, so you can imagine how accurate the colour rendition was), and the resulting Dufay prints used in the original release. When the BFI restored it in the late '90s, they did so by taking the original element (which survives) and contact printing it to a modern Eastmancolor negative. Their justification for this was (i) that Lye would have used a more accurate colour technology if he could have afforded it, and (ii) Dufaycolor no longer exists as a production technology, so there is no way of restoring the Dufay look unless you start with a surviving 1930s release print rather than the original element, and (iii) because the Dufay reseau patten extends over the track area, Dufaycolor prints with soundtracks are very problematic to rerecord. Sound quality issues were part of what sunk Dufay as a mass-duplication format in the first place (as distinct from a home movie reversal medium, for which it was very successful and enjoyed strong sales throughout the 30s and 40s).

So, if you're seeing a print from the BFI's restoration, there was actually no Dufaycolor involved anywhere in the production process, despite what it says on the opening titles!

Leo, just to clarify this, when you say 'original element' do you mean the actual painted element, rather than the original photographic negative one, which would be considered the original for a normal film. It sounds like that's what you mean, but I'm very surprised that would survive in printable condition.

When I ran it, and saw the Dufaycolor credit I noticed the lack of visible Dufaycolor reseau on the new print, and thought maybe they had used some trickery while in the digital domain to eliminate it.

While the original amateur Dufay process was fairly simple, requiring nothing more (once the stock had been manufactured) than simple reversal processing of a standard black and white emulsion, albeit a panchromatic one so processing would have to be carried out in the dark, I find it pretty incredible that they ever got a negative-positive print process to work at all. How on earth did they ever manage to put the reseau onto both stocks with the accuracy of which would have been required, and then keep them registered during printing, given that there would have been some shrinkage of the negative during processing? It would seem to have been easier to make the print from separations. Was it Dufaycolor which used some sort of early safety base, I know that one of the early colour processes did, and if so, was this to reduce shrinkage problems?

I've never been very impressed with Dufay 9.5mm film; I just find the reseau too course and distracting, not to mention that typical 9.5mm projectors were distinctly lacking in light output to start with, to the point of being almost invisible with anything but the smallest of pictures with Dufay. On the other hand I think some of the 35mm looks surprisingly good for it's time if you can get enough light through it, which is not a problem with a video transfer of course, and with video on a small screen the reseau is hardly noticed. I've got a DVD with some 35mm Dufaycolour on; I'll have to take it to the cinema and try it on the digital projector sometime. Now I've got the component feed in, and worked out how to tweak the settings on the Cine IPM I can get DVDs to look quite good on our small screen.

What element did they use for the sound in the new restoration; was the original Visatone negative still available? I generally think that digital work should be done at more than 2k, but given the nature of the iage in 'A Colour Box', this seems quite adequate.

Regarding the inability to reproduce the Dufaycolour look today, you could probably fake in fairly convincingly while in digital; whether this should be done is open to debate. If you were going to release the film on video there's possibly a case for putting it on the disc in both ways, so people can compare them, but of course it would be a fake reseau, not the real one. Should you then introduce the dull, under-lit look of projected Dufaycolour as well? In a technical video about the process, you might want to do so to illustrate its shortcomings, but for people who just want to watch the film, probably not.

The new digital restoration looks better than any previous version of the film I have seen, but I wish they had printed it in the proper format, rather than in one which if projected as instructed results in the titles being cropped. See the other thread which I started on the subject.

quote:
Another Len Lye short, Rainbow Dance, was duplicated and printed using Gasparcolor, as Stephen mentions.

Ah, I must have been getting the two films confused; It's a long time since I've seen any of Len Lye's work. Gasparcolor would seem to have been a far more suitable process to have used, given the look that the film was supposed to have

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 05-20-2007, 10:35 AM:

quote: Stephen Furley
Leo, just to clarify this, when you say 'original element' do you mean the actual painted element, rather than the original photographic negative one, which would be considered the original for a normal film. It sounds like that's what you mean, but I'm very surprised that would survive in printable condition.

Yes, the original painted element - watercolour on uncoated nitrate base. Kevin Patton showed it to me on a bench on a visit to Berkhamsted: it was in astonishingly good condition. There was only the very slightest of shrinkage - about a 2 foot length tried to form a shallow arch when laid flat on the bench, but that was it - and there was no paint flaking problem at all.

quote: Stephen Furley
When I ran it, and saw the Dufaycolor credit I noticed the lack of visible Dufaycolor reseau on the new print, and thought maybe they had used some trickery while in the digital domain to eliminate it.

No - they simply printed the original hand-painted element onto an Eastmancolor negative. I don't know how they put the titles on - either a digital reconstruction or they had the negative inserts, I guess.

I've just dug out two VHS copies of A Colour Box - the BFI's Eastmancolor version from their Britain in the 30s tape, and a telecine from a Dufaycolor print someone gave me in the '80s. I like the Dufay version a lot better. I admit that it's not a photographic part of Lye's original conception at all - in fact, he's on record as saying that he only used Dufay because he couldn't afford Technicolor. But given that Lye's animation is based on the idea of what continuously painted shapes look like when you chop them up into 4-perf frames and then project them (really, he's getting to the heart of what stop motion does to the viewer), and that the Dufay reseau achieves a very similar effect, the whole dynamic of the animation looks more boring in the Eastman print, IMHO. And the lower colour temperature, almost pastel shades of the Dufay print look different too. I know this is a subjective reaction, but the Dufay version looks 1930s like a Stanley Baldwin speech feels 1930s or a Jack Hylton 78 sounds 1930s - the Eastmancolor 1990s restoration may reveal more of Len Lye's technical skill as a painter in an objective sense, but it just looks wrong in terms of when it was originally made and shown.

quote: Stephen Furley
I find it pretty incredible that they ever got a negative-positive print process to work at all. How on earth did they ever manage to put the reseau onto both stocks with the accuracy of which would have been required, and then keep them registered during printing, given that there would have been some shrinkage of the negative during processing?

I have to confess - dunno. But bear in mind that the size of the reseau was so much smaller in 35mm than it would have been for 9.5 or 16 that I guess there must have been some margin for error. I've seen the BFI's 35mm print of Sons of the Sea, and the reseau are so small that at times you simply forget you're seeing them. What really gives the film away as not being Technicolor is the low colour temperature, sort of pastel shaded look of the picture.

It would be wonderful if someone could produce a Dufaycolor simulation filter for Adobe Premiere or Final Cut Pro. I'd love to try my hand at the Dufay look with no more than a camcorder.

By the way, Swinging the Lambeth Walk is another lovely Lye Dufaycolor animation, with a great Milt Herth soundtrack.

Posted by Ramon Lamarca Marques (Member # 3621) on 05-20-2007, 03:07 PM:

quote: Leo Enticknap
I know this is a subjective reaction, but the Dufay version looks 1930s like a Stanley Baldwin speech feels 1930s or a Jack Hylton 78 sounds 1930s - the Eastmancolor 1990s restoration may reveal more of Len Lye's technical skill as a painter in an objective sense, but it just looks wrong in terms of when it was originally made and shown.

This is how I feel when I see digital files of old films in cinemas. They are not the same, they become a hybrid and this is why if I am only left with the option of seeing a digital file of an old film (no 35mm prints available because of the totalitarian policies of the UKFC) I prefer to see them at home.

From a tender age (and to the astonishment of my peers)I have wanted to see old films in original version at the pictures, even though they had been shown a thousand times on TV. This is until I sat through the digital file of Robin Hood (Flynn's version). The whole thing was cold. The same happened when I saw a digital clip of Casablanca, which was supposed to be astonishing, that was not Casablanca. I do not know how many of us, who used to go to repertoire cinemas and national film theatres, will stop going now that they plan to stop showing film. I just wish it was enough of us. There are many films that can still be restored just using photochemical techniques and properly handled a 35mm print can be shown many times. As a matter of principle, I won't see any digital print of an old film ever at the pictures. I think it is blatantly wrong.

The NFT in London has shown me loads of differents formats and textures over the last nine years I have been in London, just for now to say that it does not matter anymore, that now everything can be shown in digital because the politicians say this is the way to go and films can be seen better than when they were released. Better according to whom, I ask?

Posted by Caleb Johnstone-Cowan (Member # 3710) on 05-20-2007, 05:00 PM:

You're right, but because of digital distribution loads of people will have now seen Lye's work and hopefully be interested. I'd never have encountered these shorts if they hadn't been in front of a feature at work.

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 05-20-2007, 05:38 PM:

quote: Caleb Johnstone-Cowan
You're right, but because of digital distribution loads of people will have now seen Lye's work and hopefully be interested. I'd never have encountered these shorts if they hadn't been in front of a feature at work.

We've received our copy on film, though we will be running the feature in digital. We don't run it until about a month from now, so the short has come very early.

Digital distribution hasn't really got anything to do with it, good or bad; the fact that this film, and I hope other shorts in future are being got into cinemas is good, but that could be done on film, either now or in the past. Digital has not enabled these films to be shown. The cost of making a small number of 350 foot 35mm prints isn't very great. We haven't so far run anything in digital which we couldn't have run on film, though some cinemas have, e.g. the live opera relays from New York. Whether the image quality is better on digital is open to debate. The sound quality is better, assuming that a high quality track exists; with something like the '30s mono track on 'A Colour Box' it's not going to make any difference.

The digital equipment will enable us to show video material, e.g. media students' work, with better quality than on the old video projector.

Is the cost of the DSN scheme worth the benefits we have gained? It's really too early to say; I thik maybe this scheme was introduced too early.

As to the question of running scope films on digital, two of the films which I've run on digital so far have been in his format; the others have been one each in 1.37, 1.78 and 1.85.

Posted by Marcial Feliciano Ramos (Member # 1989) on 05-21-2007, 12:17 PM:

I received a used 35mm scope copy but in excellent shape.

Posted by Caleb Johnstone-Cowan (Member # 3710) on 05-21-2007, 01:40 PM:

I concede to the above, you're right there's no reason shorts can't be in 35mm and I wish they'd do more of it. I think that with sponsorship it would be possible, guess the Orange gold spots could be expanded.

quote: Stephen Furley
Is the cost of the DSN scheme worth the benefits we have gained? It's really too early to say; I thik maybe this scheme was introduced too early.

There should have been more thought about where the DLPs went. Multiplexes need two minimum, one in the smallest screen and one in a medium screen say. Our site needs three.

Posted by Amanda Mundin (Member # 3386) on 08-18-2007, 02:31 PM:

We ran 'Ten Canoes' last week, another film delivered on digital in 16:9 aspect ratio when the 35mm prints I believe are scope.

Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 08-18-2007, 04:43 PM:

They should make "full screen" versions of all movies for theaters with common-width screens! [Razz]

Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 08-18-2007, 10:30 PM:

quote: Amanda Mundin
We ran 'Ten Canoes' last week, another film delivered on digital in 16:9 aspect ratio when the 35mm prints I believe are scope.

They were beautiful sharp scope prints, I believe it was the first Australian 4k DI 35mm release .

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 08-19-2007, 02:34 AM:

Hey Cameron

Can you please email me about this?

Thanks
John

Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 08-19-2007, 06:10 PM:

quote: Amanda Mundin
We ran 'Ten Canoes' last week, another film delivered on digital in 16:9 aspect ratio when the 35mm prints I believe are scope.

This is a real cause for concern. And it's such a beautiful film too. Does anyone in Australia know anything about this? I.e., did the Director OK it?

The DoP composed for 'Scope. Going down to 16x9 could hardly have been intended during production.

What's going on here? This is not what D-Cinema is intended to do.