This is topic showing a silent movie right before Batman? 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=009411

---

Posted by Ralph Martin (Member # 4876) on 07-16-2008, 02:22 AM:
 
I’m a high school music teacher who wants to have our orchestra accompany a silent film in a 16-plex movie theater in our town. The facility is only about 8 years old and as you would expect, is not set up to run a silent film. The movie is Wings (1927) and is a full frame 35mm print that will run fine at 24fps.

Their projector in their biggest auditorium is a Century SA-TA with a 2-lens automatic turret. I don’t know the throw or the exact screen size at this point. They are checking this for me.

As you may guess I’m not an expert in these matters, but it’s up to me to purchase or get my hand on any lens or aperture plate needed to give the movie the nice presentation it deserves. And of course anything they do to alter the projector will have to be removed in time to show the next picture (You know, like the new Batman movie or something like that) within about an hour or so.

Any thought on this???

The kids are excited about the project. They have the musical score just about ready and the first screening date is August 13. so I have to work fast.
 

---

Posted by Andy Frodsham (Member # 4061) on 07-16-2008, 03:45 AM:
 
The projectionists (or their technicians) will need to file a new aperture plate for the film you are planning to run. Unfortunately, these have to be 'made to measure' in order to allow for the 'rake' (angle of the projector to the screen). It is very unlikely that the theatre you describe will already have silent aperture plates pre-cut.

Since the size of the newly-cut 'silent' aperture plate is now going to be bigger than any of the existing formats the theatre screens, the resulting image will be too big for the existing screen settings (width ways at least). The larger image will need to be accommodated by either opening-up the screen masking (if it is adjustable to this degree) or using a longer focal length lens to drop the image size down to fit the existing masking.

Additionally, because you have now added (when the plate was filed) extra picture to the frame (but on one side only), the image on the acreen will be slightly off-centre. I very much doubt that the projectionists in the theatre will be keen on moving the projector laterally to accommodate this offset (especially since a conventionally plated film is to follow), so you will probably have to put-up with it!

You need to talk with the projectionists/technicians to see what is available and how far they are willing to go!

Apologies if my explanation seems clumsy! Good luck with the screening (I'm an ex teacher myself and know how children value such events)!
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 07-16-2008, 04:42 AM:
 

quote: Ralph Martin

---

and is a full frame 35mm print that will run fine at 24fps.

---

Being also full-frame, and with the Century SA-TA unit, the auto lens assembly might have to be taken off so the Century can be used as a single lens model so the lens barrel holder can be shifted to silent film center (since right now, the lens is centered for soundtrack film-being shifted to the left of film center) via the eccentric adjustment on the holder.

Good luck in finding TA-slider aperture plates (or, if you know of anyone who has a regular SA and swap out the TA trap with the SA trap that uses single aperture plates) and doing all of that recutting from a new aperture to run silent frame size...that's a lotta brass to cut out.

(..at least you got til the 13th of Aug to come up with a conclusion on how this is to be pulled off ...)

-Monte
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 07-16-2008, 07:23 AM:
 
About the only thing on your side is the speed - the modifications needed for a typical multiplex setup to run below 24 without flickering are complicated and expensive.

On the lens issue, if the 'scope backing lens can be detached from the anamorph, it will be roughly the right focal distance for full-gate silent. You'll probably see a little bit of the frame matte at the top and bottom, but it won't look too bad. If the anamorph swings into place on a bracket, you're in luck - simply swing the scope lens into place and leave the anamorph out of the beam. However, if it screws into the back of the anamorph, things get a little bit complicated. Showing the silent is no problem - simply unscrew the backing lens from the anamorph and show that. However, between the end of Wings and the start of the next regular show (assuming the feature is 'scope), the anamorph will need to be realigned using an RP-40 (or equivalent) test loop. This procedure shouldn't take more than 10-15 minutes or so, but it will take that long.

As a very basic strategy, the only serious work needed will be to cut a plate. After that, using the 'scope prime lens, opening the masking out and living with the slightly off-centre picture (perhaps seat the orchestra a little off-centre in front of the screen, too, so that the audience don't notice it so much?) will get you a show that is basically acceptable. Refocusing the mirror, centre-ing the picture (either with an offset barrel or by physically shifting the projector) is all icing on the cake if you have time to do it and the projectionists at your theatre are comfortable doing it.
 

---

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 07-16-2008, 07:54 AM:
 
Have you been rehersing with a video copy of the film? If so, make sure that it is running at the same speed as the film print will be, or it's going to make life difficult for the orchestra. If the film will be projected at 24, then a NTSC video copy transferred at 23.976 will be close enough, but if the projector speed is out, or the video was transferred at 16 2/3, or some other strange speed which is possible if transferred on a polygon telecine, or if you've got a PAL copy, then you might have problems.

As with any old film, ensure that you haven't been sent a nitrate print; it's most unlikely, but it is possible.
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 07-16-2008, 08:24 AM:
 
Vacaville isn't too far from the Bay Area (according to Google maps, anyway). There are a number of F-T members in that region and I bet that, if you ask nicely, you can get someone to come out and file the aperture plate for you for free or minimal cost. (Obviously, you would still need to order the plate.) Alternatively, it is possible that someone has a silent plate for that model of projector lying around that could be sent to you by mail and would be "good enough" for your purposes. Try posting in the help wanted section and/or the for-sale/wanted section.

Also, try to find out the focal length of the scope backup lens ahead of time; the number is normally stamped on the lens barrel and should be something like "4.00 in" or "100mm" (the number will vary, but it will be in either inches or millimeters). It may be easier to borrow or rent the correct lens, rather than dealing with disassembling and re-assembling and -aligning the anamorphic lens.

If the screen gets shorter (as opposed to wider) for scope (i.e. masking opens vertically), then things get more interesting, as you would really want to get the correct lens to fill the full height of the screen at its tallest (i.e. 1.85) setting. If this is the case, post the screen height (tallest position) and throw distance and someone here will tell you what size lens you need. In a multiplex, there may be one of the correct size already in the complex that you could use. Otherwise, you will want to borrow or rent one.
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 07-16-2008, 08:43 AM:
 
One other thing occurs to me - we're talking about 'projector' singular here, which presumably means that this print will have to be plattered. Most prints of 35mm silents come from archives these days, and most archives do not allow the heads and tails to be cut off their prints for long-play presentation. I would guess that for a title like Wings you're either getting the print from UCLA or GEH, both of which have a 'no decapitating' rule for their circulating collections. If you are in that situation, about your only option is to platter the print with the heads and tails left on each reel, taking care to cut the head spacing in rack when making the join, and close the douser as each head and tail goes through. It'll mean about a 45-second pause every 20 minutes or so, but if you don't have two projectors and you can't cut the heads and tails off, it's about your only option.
 

---

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 07-16-2008, 09:15 AM:
 
Yes, Ralph, it sounds like you have some work ahead of you, but I think I speak for everyone when I say that this project sounds really cool. Please do keep us all posted here on the progress and how the show turns out.

Good luck, and welcome to Film-Tech!


 

---

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 07-16-2008, 11:04 AM:
 
The whole thing sounds like a large pain in the ass for the theatre people especially on top of the Batman screening. The simplest solution is to use the scope prime lens and the scope plate. It will still be centered and the small amount of picture lost on one side will barely be noticeable to few if anybody. Under the circumstances I think it unreasonable to expect the theatre to change their set up for one screening. It is more important that they get Batman right than Wings.

I can change from our modern film set up to silent in about 15 minutes.

The last time I ran Wings the print was excellent but it had been cut several times with a bunch of single frames taped in. I don't remember where it was from.
 

---

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 07-16-2008, 11:20 AM:
 
Ok, well maybe it doesn't sound cool to EVERYBODY.
 

---

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 07-16-2008, 11:44 AM:
 

quote: Bill Enos

---

It is more important that they get Batman right than Wings.

---

quote: Bill Enos

---

The simplest solution is to use the scope prime lens and the scope plate. It will still be centered and the small amount of picture lost on one side will barely be noticeable to few if anybody.

---

quote:

---

that a movie isn’t truly finished until the projection artist in each theater puts his finishing touches on the presentation.

This is why I’m in the arts!

---

quote: Ralph Martin

---

In searching out silent films to use I came across no owners who were completely against plattering.

---

quote: Ralph Martin

---

that a movie isn’t truly finished until the projection artist in each theater puts his finishing touches on the presentation.

---

Thank you!

I have always approached my job as the last (but no less important) link in the film production process. Unfortunately it's the nature of the job that if I do it right, no one should be aware of my presence.

I'm a nice guy, but whenever someone says to me "You have such an easy job, all you do is push buttons and watch movies!"; I want to punch them!

Several years ago I got to work an "open" carbon-arc changeover booth at an outdoor film festival.
(and I had to keep an eye on two large generators)

I was under a tent-like canopy enclosure in case of bad weather, but otherwise exposed to view.

On more than one occasion someone would come up to me afterwards and comment on how busy I was during the show.
I made sure to thank them profusely for noticing.

One guy once told me that "watching me work was more entertaining than the movie" that night.

I almost could have kissed him! ( well, you know what I mean...It was a rethorical reaction!)
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 07-17-2008, 02:07 PM:
 

quote: Jim Cassedy

---

One guy once told me that "watching me work was more entertaining than the movie" that night.

---

quote:

---

The current David Lean season which is screenng at a number of cinemas around the Country for example seems to be at least mainly in this format;

---

quote: Leo Enticknap

---

Out of interest, where is your print coming from? Of the major US archives I know people at, GEH and MoMA have a strict and non-negotiable 'no platters' rule.

---

quote: Ralph Martin

---

a movie isn’t truly finished until the projection artist in each theater puts his finishing touches on the presentation.

---

quote: Stephen Furley

---

It doesn't matter what you're showing, or to who, you owe it to the film makers, the audience and the person hiring the theatre if it's a private screening, to present the film in the best way that you can

---

You could make a virtue in the publicity that the film is being presented absolutely faithfully in its original aspect ratio and this could be detailed in the press with emphasis on the achievement angle. E.g.: "How local theatre techs gave 'Wings' to silent movie classic"

BTW thanks Leo for mentioning the 6K reels project I was involved in. Note that this differed from previous initiatives by being very limited in scope and intended only for specialised prints. It was not intended for bulk release prints.

FWIW the concept was commercialised (with the grateful support of a leading UK cinema engineering company) and written up in the December 2005 issue of the Journal of the BKSTS Cinema Technology. Considerable R&D went into it (not at all a case of "reinventing the wheel" incidentally), and it is really down to lack of interest that regrettably there has been no take-up to date.
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 07-19-2008, 12:44 AM:
 

quote: Steve Guttag

---

I do think, though, a standard plate will fit the slot

---

quote: Stephen Furley

---

with good publicity they could probably draw in a good audience, from a wide area. If that turns out to be the case then maybe this won't be a one-off, but might become a regular event, with another film next year etc.

---

This is the second silent film we did at the theater so this is probably going to be an annual thing. Last year we completely sold out two performances. The difference this year is that this print is full frame. We were lucky last year in that the digital copy had a soundtrack and could be played without much additional effort – We just had to turn off the sound system. Anyway, I'm sure they'll use any plate or lense needed for this print in coming years.

Just to let you know how expensive This silent picure performance is:

To rent this 35mm print for two performances cost $1700.00. This is not counting Paramount Pictures’ license which is half the gross ticket sales. Add to that the rights to perform the music which is $2400.00. Add to that the movie theater rental and professional musicians to cover part not covered by the students - $4000.00. Adding movie posters at $40.00 a printing, ticket service at $300.00 and you have an expensive venture.

This started out as a local student class project and has turned into a little industry! But no matter what, I will do everything in my power to present the movie as close to perfect as possible. I owe it to the kids.

[ 07-19-2008, 11:29 PM: Message edited by: Ralph Martin ]
 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 07-20-2008, 03:00 AM:
 
Some booker at Paramount saw you as a cash cow and is milking you for all it's worth. $1700 against 50%? I've paid 50% only twice in my life when running classics -- once for EUROPA EUROPA and only because there was screw-up and the publicity guy put it on our calendar before I had a confirmation. The SOB at Orion knew I wasn't about to cancel the engagement so he charged me $1000 against 50% and I just bit the bullet and paid it. But not without a lot of cursing. I booked it last year again for an screening with the director in attendence and I got it for $250 against the 35%. 35%, by the way, is the NORMAL percentage I pay on almost every classic title for multiple runs over a weekend. Bet this guy made this deal for only ONE show, correct? AND you probably have to ship out the print the very next day too. They had some fascist named Joe Moscarat there for years who used to try to pull that crap when students wanted to play older Paramount titles. I think he is long gone though.

Disney once wanted 50% for FANTASIA, but I am used to them by now and I knew I would still have an overage because it's a good grosser. But those were the ONLY two instances that I would ever agree to pay that percentage for a title that is sitting in storage which is making them NO money at all -- probably loosing storage costs, in fact.

Are you booking this as a non-theatrical entity...as a school? Studios love to rip off schools because they that realize schools, museum programmers, and the like, don't book primarily on a strictly business basis -- they book because they WANT a particular title....usually with an almost "We'll pay almost anything to be able to show THAT movie" attitude. So they charge accordingly, knowing that such non-theatricals will be willing to pay a lot more that a business man who will take one look at the terms and say, Hell no -- take your 40 year old title at $1700 against 50% and shove it. You won't do that, so they take advantage of you.

As for the music rights, wouldn't the theatre already have ASAP and BMI licences for music performance in their theatre? Why would you need to pay that kind of exhorbidant license fee? Or is that for the actual sheet music? I don't know that much about sheet music licenses, but seems to me if you buy the parts, shouldn't that about cover it? How many voices in the orchestra? Divide them by $2400 and that sounds like a lot more than the cost of the sheet music in parts. Something smells like a major rip-off here.
 

---

Posted by Jack Theakston (Member # 4484) on 07-20-2008, 02:19 PM:
 
Ralph, I think you're getting a raw deal. $2,400 for just the music rights? Are they renting a score? Are you using a full orchestra or something?

I'd just book Paramount's old b/w print of WINGS (which I think is even reduced to 1.37) and hire a theater organist for $600 to come in (and if you don't have an organ, hook up with your local ATOS chapter to get an electric put in for that show). You'd be saving yourself a lot of money.
 

---

Posted by Ralph Martin (Member # 4876) on 07-20-2008, 03:48 PM:
 

quote:

---

Some booker at Paramount saw you as a cash cow and is milking you for all it's worth. $1700 against 50%?

---

No, it’s worse than that. ---
I’ve already paid $1700.00 to the owner of the print in London just to rent the print. I’m not getting the print from Paramount. However, Paramount owns the rights to Wings so in adition to what I’ve already paid to use the print, I must now pay Paramount 50% of the gross sales.

You can see why plattering the print isn’t much of an issue. After about 10 plays the print is paid for and anything after that is profit for the print owner. If he needs another copy - the digital file of the whole movie is sitting on a hard drive. Waiting for an occasional art house to book your digital copy just to save a replaceable $8,000 print doesn’t make much business sense at almost a grand per play.

If it were my print, I'd say, "platter that sucker... TWICE!! That will be $1700.00 please - Oh, and by the way your still going to have to pay Paramount for the rights "

Don't get me wrong -- It's business -- and I agreed to pay the price.

quote: Jack Theakston

---

I'd just book Paramount's old b/w print of WINGS (which I think is even reduced to 1.37) and hire a theater organist for $600.

---

quote: Ralph Martin

---

I’ve already paid $1700.00 to the owner of the print in London just to rent the print.

---

You mentioned Channel Four earlier, so I presume this is the Brownlow version. Agreed totally with Frank - this sounds like a right royal ripoff. The going rate for a non-theatrical, one show print rental here is around £150-200, not the £850 they're stinging you for. OK, you can probably add a couple of hundred quid to that for shipping a 35mm print from London to California and back, but even so I still smell a big, furry, Basil Fawlty-style rat.
 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 07-20-2008, 04:59 PM:
 
I know this is probably too late in the game to consider, but for those kinds of bucks, you could easily rent a high quality video projector that will give a bright enough image and with the proper lensing, sized correct for the screen. Just use the DVD as the source. Then you would only have to pay Paramount their bloody 50%.

I am assuming from what you say, the purpose of the event is for the music students to experience performing a music score and accompanying a film. It is not primarily that you are resurrecting a extant print of WINGS for movie enthusiasts, correct? Personally I would go the video route before I would spend that kind of bucks for a one time event.

I HAD to do a video screening of THE SEARCHERS for which there were no prints and the Chair of the English department insisted that we had to show THAT title for the students. Video was the only alternative and it looked quite acceptable (actually, much to my surprise), even off a standard DVD. Hey, you frame the image and mask it properly so it mimics what film would look like in that theatre and if you have a projector that can get the image decently bright, the audience will probably not even notice those brick sized digital blocks.

For THE SEARCHERS, the audience was students and they were watching it for the story content and social differences of what was acceptable when the film was made and now. It wasn't a MOVIE event, it was an Literature Department extra curricula event....there is a difference.

At my Performing Arts Center we work with the college Conservatory of Music all the time. The orchestra is always securing rights for sheet music which they perform (we have ASCAP & BMI licenses so the actual music rights are already covered in our theatres) but I have no idea what they have to pay for the sheet music. I will find out what the usual cost is to them when they play a work from scores. Knowing their budgetary woes, I can guarantee that they are NOT paying royalties in the numbers you are saying you're being charged.

I will get back to you on what I find out.
 

---

Posted by Ralph Martin (Member # 4876) on 07-20-2008, 04:59 PM:
 

quote: Leo Enticknap

---

one show print rental here is around £150-200, not the £850 they're stinging you for

---

It is expensive – in fairness to them - the price is for two performances. They pay the shipping to California and I pay the shipping back to the UK.

I think the real problem with the cost is that there are simply too many hands in the cash box. When we did Metropolis Kino International had the print and the rights and they gave us a very good deal because we’re a school. They're amazing people. I can’t say enough good things about Kino.

In the case of Wings, everything is separated so nobody is able to offer a “package deal.” But I’m learning a lot about the business and I think next year’s production will cost a little less

quote: Frank Angel

---

As for the music rights, wouldn't the theatre already have ASAP and BMI licences for music performance in their theatre? Why would you need to pay that kind of exhorbidant license fee?

---

Actually I do many concerts with our school orchestra. The musical fees for the orchestral score to wings are about right. BMI, ASCAP, etc. don’t deal with Grand Rights - that is to say large dramatic works such as musicals, operas, etc. nor do thy deal with synchronization rights (the right to put music to visuals such as a movie). It's generally quite expensive.

This leads me to a complaint: When a theater books a movie they are getting a license to present both the visuals and sound – including music. In the case of a silent only the visuals are licensed by Paramount – the music must be licensed separately so the movie should be cheaper. Oh well…
 

---

Posted by Jack Theakston (Member # 4484) on 07-20-2008, 07:13 PM:
 
Where are you renting the music from? There are a number of people, including myself, who can rent you original scores made out of public domain or original music for a flat rate.
 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 07-21-2008, 02:12 AM:
 
What is this score you are buying rights to? Is it something composed specifically for the film? We just finished a CinEvent as we call them, where we booked THE GOLEM, silent, and we commissioned a score composed for the film by an accomplished musician and composer, Tom Nazziola who also conduced The BQE Project ensemble during the screenings. Even commissioning someone to write an original score didn't cost us as much as you are paying.

We were going to rent the print from Eastman House after jumping thru allot of hoops...good hoops though -- I am glad they are so protective of their prints (can anyone tell me what's the highest, lowest and mean temperature in the area where you store your prints? How bout the humidity?). Then we discovered that the Kino version on DVD was really the definitive version with lots of additional footage that they assembled from various sources in different countries. Also, our composer had already been scoring to the longer Kino version and re-editing the score for the 35mm print was out of the question.

And yes, Kino is one of the best in the industry.

Just Saturday we ran ENTER THE DRAGON ENTER THE DRAGON with an incredible score composed by Karsh Kale/Soh Daiko, again which we commissioned.

How about this for a class project -- have the music students compose their own score AND perform it. Now THAT would be special and would pack the house!
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 07-21-2008, 03:49 AM:
 
My favourite question on the GEH questionnaire is where it asks if the prints will be stored under armed guard while they're in your building.
 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 07-21-2008, 03:56 AM:
 
Yah, and what are the guards' rotation schedules....how many times do they patrol film the storage room, the room where they are shipped, the room where they are inspected. What kind of locks are on the doors. Who has the keys?
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 07-21-2008, 04:30 AM:
 
To satisfy's Ralphs curiousity on the technicial jargon in describing this one part of the projector:

First image is the slider trap for this one projector that is planned to be used for this silent film presentation - which holds the slider aperture:



Second image with the slider aperture removed and a standard aperture plate in it's place - that can be held down with external means as Steve previously mentions.



(Just a little visual help here for Ralph and sorry on the weak fotography due to celphone cameras..)

-Monte
 

---

Posted by Ralph Martin (Member # 4876) on 07-21-2008, 09:56 AM:
 

quote:

---

How about this for a class project -- have the music students compose their own score AND perform it. Now THAT would be special and would pack the house!

---

Agreed - Last year the music students scored and accompanied a Looney-tunes cartoon and our media class provided the live sound effects and even live Foley effects. Scoring a cartoon is really tough, but it was only about 8 minutes long.

They were able to do it because of their study of the professional composers. So, during the summer we get the professional stuff.

This score we’re using for Wings is by Carl Davis. We have a 35-piece orchestra (crammed between the screen and the first row of seats in a multiplex theater)

Today I should be getting the information about the throw and screen dimensions. With all of the information I've learned from this forum I'll be

-- Looking for a proper lens and cutting an aperture plate to fit the projector and keeping it for future presentations

-- Using the scope prime lens if finding a proper lens isn’t accomplished.

-- Looking into better options with regard to rental of prints next year.

And then have a memorable performance in August.

Thanks for all of your great advice help. I’ll keep you posted.

Ralph
 

---

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 07-21-2008, 10:46 AM:
 
One thing that musicians must be aware of on this type of film is that the DVD or VHS they practiced to may be different from the film they play for in the live show. Our organist of several years ago practiced extensively at home with a VHS of Phantom of the Opera, comes show time, the newly struck 16mm print had scenes in a different order from the VHS and had something that wasn't on the VHS, fortunately he's quite an accomplished player and improviser and never missed a note. A 35mm print we played later was different still but the same as a DVD that is currently available.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-21-2008, 11:42 AM:
 
Another issue with using video as the practice source...their times (at least on tape media) isn't too precise...if a sequence is to take 2:15 on tape...it might be something different with a film show. I would hope that with DVDs that tape stretch would not have the same effect it does on VHS. If you have a precise number of beats on a sequence...be prepaired to adjust that.

Make sure you have rehersal time with the actual print you are going to run (video or film)...the final plate or lens is unimportant for the rehersal...the key is to ensure your timing is what you think it is going to be.

For one violinist, I was adjusting the film speed in 8/100ths of a frame increments to get the sequence to come out right! It seems silly but some musicians just have to have the timing their way and if they reherse to one speed then by god they have to have it at that speed. To accommodate this violinist, the conductor insisted on specific number of beats in a particular sequence....which I did...for another sequence it had to be again a specific number of beats...which, if using the same speed, it would not have been! So mid performance I was adjusting speed (to presets) to ensure that each sequence would have the required number of beats. Fortunately, this has been the exception, not the rule! Rarely does one performer get to make such demands.

Steve
 

---

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 07-21-2008, 12:38 PM:
 
That's ridiculous. My band teachers in JH/HS were professional musicians at various points in life and said that they'd have to be ready for anything because there were times when the conductor would start up a performance at a speed different from when they had rehearsed the piece prior.
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 07-21-2008, 02:08 PM:
 

quote: Steve Guttag

---

Another issue with using video as the practice source...their times (at least on tape media) isn't too precise...if a sequence is to take 2:15 on tape...it might be something different with a film show.

---

Yonks ago, during the year I worked at MOMI in London, we ran a season of Kevin Brownlow / Carl Davis silents with recorded orchestral track. The way we came up with to sync the two was to play the orchestral track from a hi-fi VHS tape. There was a CCTV camera on the projected image, the image from which was displayed on a monitor in the booth. Right next to it was another monitor showing the image from the VHS. A projectionist monitored both images and operated a projector speed control on the fly in order to keep the film in visual sync with the tape, so that the score being played back from the tape in the auditorium would remain in sync with the projected image from the film projector. Though it was labour intensive and needed quite a bit of practice to get right, it worked.
 

---

Posted by Ralph Martin (Member # 4876) on 07-21-2008, 04:53 PM:
 
We have no problem with tempo or synchronization. Musicians learn to watch the conductor. In our performances I always conduct different tempi from our rehearsals just to keep them paying attention. All they have to do is watch me.

The students study 107 hours in our rehearsal Studio at school before the first dress rehearsal with the print. The DVD is provided by the print owner with the score recorded on the DVD for reference. So it should be the same. If not we have another cool challenge to deal with – just another one of life’s happy moments.
 

---

Posted by Bruce McGee (Member # 131) on 07-21-2008, 04:55 PM:
 
I'd like to be at this presentation of Wings in California.

You must teach a fun class.

Scoring a Looney Tunes cartoon. What a riot! I bet you had some real kooky stuff done!!!
 

---

Posted by Ralph Martin (Member # 4876) on 07-21-2008, 08:19 PM:
 
Yep, they’re a great bunch of kids.

The theater just gave me this information:

Audutorium 16

Screen dimensions: 26ft X 49ft 3inches

Throw to center of curved screen 82ft 11 inches (just corrected)

Curved screen recesses 3ft 5inches at center.

Anything I have to worry about here?

BTW – I don’t think I mentioned --- It’s Brenden Theaters in Vacaville, Ca. It’s a privately owned chain based in Las Vegas. I believe they have 7 locations - One IMAX.
 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 07-21-2008, 08:20 PM:
 

quote: Chris Slycord

---

That's ridiculous. My band teachers in JH/HS were professional musicians at various points in life and said that they'd have to be ready for anything because there were times when the conductor would start up a performance at a speed different from when they had rehearsed the piece prior.

---

quote:

---

We were going to rent the print from Eastman House after jumping thru allot of hoops ....(can anyone tell me what's the highest, lowest and mean temperature in the area where you store your prints? How bout the humidity?). >Slightly edited quote from Frank Angel post<

---

Hahahah- I know EXACTLY what you are referring to.

For those who don't: EASTMAN HOUSE requires you to fill out quite a questionaire, I seem to recall it it was about 7 pages long, before they will let you rent a print from them.

As Frank sez in his message- it's all information necessary to insure the safety of their prints, but some of the questions get into some pretty fine minutia.

I think it took me almost 2hrs to fill the whole thing out due to the amount of research necessary to provide accurate answers.

But.... we got our print!
 

---

Posted by Ralph Martin (Member # 4876) on 07-23-2008, 04:29 PM:
 
I tried to buy a lens and aperture plate from ICECO in Florida. The gentleman on the phone said that based on our theater’s throw and screen size it would be cheaper to just use the an existing scope prime lens and to widen the aperture plate at the sound-track side to .980”. He also said that the full frame would be visible but would not quite fill the screen top and bottom about 6 inches. A proper lens would still be short by a tiny bit and could cost $100 to $400 depending on what’s available.

So I need to decide if 6” is worth 100 to 400 dollars.

Hmmm……..
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 07-23-2008, 06:11 PM:
 
I've never seen a pre-cut silent plate available for sale (new). You have to buy an Academy (1.37:1) plate and file it out. Or, if you're in a hurry, start with a scope plate (which won't be quite perfect, but will be close).

Agreed with the others that it sounds like you are paying too much for this screening. Also agreed that Kino is very good to deal with. It sounds like a great project, though, and I hope that it is successful.
 

---

Posted by Ralph Martin (Member # 4876) on 07-23-2008, 10:31 PM:
 
Thanks for the good wishes and thanks for the advice. (Monte, Thanks for the posted pictures – They were very helpful)

Sorry for my next ignorant questions but –

If I get a scope plate and file the sound-track side so that the total width is .980” will it work? If so I think I can do this. All I need is a caliper, a file and a little luck.
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 07-23-2008, 11:57 PM:
 

quote: Ralph Martin

---

so that the total width is .980” will it work

---

It can work - also make sure the height is at .715

to ensure that your filed edges are straight, best run them in the projector with some sort of film to check for inperfections.

It's quite tough to get a straight edge without some sort of visual testing performed.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-24-2008, 02:10 AM:
 
.980"? Yeah, right. And Monte... .715"? Where did you pull that one from?
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 07-24-2008, 05:16 AM:
 

quote: Jim Cassedy

---

For those who don't: EASTMAN HOUSE requires you to fill out quite a questionaire, I seem to recall it it was about 7 pages long, before they will let you rent a print from them.

As Frank sez in his message- it's all information necessary to insure the safety of their prints, but some of the questions get into some pretty fine minutia.

I think it took me almost 2hrs to fill the whole thing out due to the amount of research necessary to provide accurate answers.

---

I didn't stop laughing for several minutes after I saw:

Question 234 A: Does your facility have security guards patrolling the film storage area?

B: Are they armed?

GEH's philosophy is pretty much the same as ours: to treat projection prints, both original and of restorations from their own preservation elements, as valuable objects that should always be treated with care, expertise and respect. I suppose the questionnaire is basically a massive hoop they ask venues to jump through as a way of showing that they take that seriously, and the next best option if you don't have the budget to do a site inspection visit of everywhere that is going to show your prints. But frankly, asking for the home phone number of the janitor's assistant's cat (along with about 10 other people) is taking things a tinsy bit far.
 

---

Posted by Ralph Martin (Member # 4876) on 08-01-2008, 12:19 AM:
 
I just received the print for Wings today without reels. Just 7 round canisters and inside is film coiled around a plastic core. You’d think they would have shipped it with reels. That’s the way metropolis came to us last year. But it’s here and I suppose the theater technician knows how to build the print for the presentations.

I just ordered 45mm lens – it cost $250 and a aperture plate for the Century SA-TA ($30) and a test film to help me file the plate ($4 per foot). WOW, I thought that the music business was expensive!

So, Monday I’ll be filing my first (and probably last) aperture plate before the theater has to use the projector for a movie.

You know… I should probably tip my hat to our local theater for being so willing to let me “play with” their projector. I doubt many other corporate theater chains would be so understanding.
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 08-01-2008, 02:35 AM:
 

quote: Steve Guttag

---

.980"? Yeah, right. And Monte... .715"? Where did you pull that one from?

---

quote: Mitchell Dvoskin

---

How did you run the sound film Enter The Dragon with your own live score? How did you kill the films original score while leaving the dialog?

---

Mitchell, they had a DVD that was specially authored for them by the studio which only carried the dialog. Since this film originally was extensively overdubbed throughout, it probably was not too difficult to get just the dialogue track.

We do a lot of these live music accompanied films and the groups make arrangements with the studios so they can perform with film on an on-going basis, like Alloy Orchestra, The BQE Project, The Philip Glass Ensemble, etc. They all have a repertoire of titles that they travel with and rotate. In one case, The BQE Project got rights to THE BLUE ANGEL and as you would guess, there was no dialogue-only track to be had, so the group had to use the existing track that was on the print.

The conductor, Tom Nazziola, had a fader at the podium so he could mix the filmsound at whatever level he needed, ducking it under when there was no dialog and covering with his live score. He knew the film intimately enough that he would fade out the soundtrack precisely when his ensemble was playing. Luckily for him, most of the dialog in that film (as is the case in a lot of very early sound films) had very little music underneath it. In fact, in many early sound films, music was heard only for the credits. When Dietrich sang, he just played to match the music that was on the track. It was so well done as to be almost undetectable.

Some of the studios are very supportive of this kind of thing while others are, well, how can I put this delicately.....like Disney.

Tomorrow we have another such collaboration. The music of Carl Davis (prolific composer of TV movie scores and a slew of silents including BEN HUR, PHANTOM OF THE OPERA, THIEF OF BAGDAD) will accompany Charlie Chaplin's THE ADVENTURER, THE RINK and THE IMMIGRANT.

In the spirit of full disclosure, this show is NOT film, but standard DVD into stacked Barcos. We just finished aligning them till about two hours ago and I have to tell you, I was getting a very decent image -- full screen height at 1.33:1 and hella BRIGHT. It even showed the neg splice flashes until we shuttered it down -- I almost wanted to leave them just so I could fancy it was film.

Those electronic shutters on the Barcos, btw, are the video equivalent of what would be an adjustable aperture plate in a 35mm projector -- something someone should have invented long ago instead of all this primitive filing the plate, then checking, then filing the plate, then checking, etc. for hours. Really, how come Mr. Simplex or Mr. Century didn't come up with an adjustable aperture plate for the projectors like in 1935 or something? In my book, that certainly would be worthy of one of those Technical Academy Award. Such a thing would have solved Ralph's silent apeture plate problem lick-it-ty split. Celebrate Brooklyn - Charlie Chaplin Under the Stars
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 08-01-2008, 12:14 PM:
 
Monte,

I'm not trying to sound nasty here...but what Simplex manual has that dimension...I checked several of ours...not just the XL but E7 and Supers...nothing about a 715 x (980) aperture.

981" is a Camera aperture and it goes practically perf to perf.

I listed the nominal silent aperture on page 3.... .680" x .910". On another thread, there is a link to an SMPE article that lists the silent aperture within a few thousands of those numbers (my numbers were by actually measuring the machines of the day).

Steve
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 08-01-2008, 01:18 PM:
 
After doing this post, I keep on forgetting that this topic is pertaining to a silent aperture instead of sound apertures, thus I got the .715 height from a 'sound' aperture from the manuals and true, the width number .910 wouldn't be posted.

Thus, my total goof in not getting the full facts together before my original post..my apologies to all.
 

---

Posted by Ralph Martin (Member # 4876) on 08-01-2008, 02:40 PM:
 

quote: Frank Angel

---

Tomorrow we have another such collaboration. The music of Carl Davis (prolific composer of TV movie scores and a slew of silents including BEN HUR, PHANTOM OF THE OPERA, THIEF OF BAGDAD)

---

quote:

---

I just ordered 45mm lens – it cost $250 and a aperture plate for the Century SA-TA ($30) and a test film to help me file the plate ($4 per foot). WOW, I thought that the music business was expensive!

---

quote: Ralph Martin

---

I just received the print for Wings today without reels. Just 7 round canisters and inside is film coiled around a plastic core. You’d think they would have shipped it with reels. That’s the way metropolis came to us last year. But it’s here and I suppose the theater technician knows how to build the print for the presentations.

---

quote: Leo Enticknap

---

That's the standard way release prints are shipped pretty much everywhere except in North America.

---

Yet another challenge! That's ok Maybe they have the right spool. If not I'll get it for them. Thanks for the information.

I meet the projectionist this Friday morning to file the plate. Then Saturday morning to test-screen the print. I'm sure this is pretty standard stuff for you all, but for me this is really exciting! i hope it works.

quote: Frank Angel

---

All went smashing with the Chaplin nite. Carl Davis is a character.

---

I'm glad it went well - congratulations! Carl Davis is a great guy. I'm glad he let us perform his score to Wings. It's a really nice work. Huge too --- 2hrs 20min. -- My score is one thousand pages long!
 

---

Posted by Bernard Tonks (Member # 809) on 08-03-2008, 06:15 AM:
 
The original Paramount release of “Wings” was color tinted and had some sequences in an early widescreen process known as Magnascope. Some prints had synchronized sound effects and music, using the General Electric Kinegraphone (later RCA Photophone) process.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information
Search: Wings (film), sorry direct link fails?

There used to be a website of the Carlton Theatre Haymarket that included details of the London premiere run of “Wings” in 1928 which had a Magnascope wide screen.


[ 08-03-2008, 09:58 AM: Message edited by: Bernard Tonks ]
 

---

Posted by Richard Fowler (Member # 893) on 08-03-2008, 07:34 AM:
 
Regarding adjustable aperture plates on 35mm projectors, some European machines (Wassman Euro Kino - Spain) had ajustable aperture "curtains" with cams to readjust to different formats. Harbin projectors of China also use this on some of their models.
I have provided and projected both "Wings" and "The Wind" in Miami using a Cinemeccanica V5 with 3 blade shutter and D.C. motor with a tachometer.
Chaplin's Roy Export Company maintains most of his negatives and preservations. The DVD probably looked superior to the 16mm prints made from 1960's or earlier printing materials.
 

---

Posted by Ralph Martin (Member # 4876) on 08-03-2008, 04:26 PM:
 

quote: Bernard Tonks

---

The original Paramount release of “Wings” was color tinted and had some sequences in an early widescreen process known as Magnascope. Some prints had synchronized sound effects and music, using the General Electric Kinegraphone (later RCA Photophone) process.

---

Our print contains all of the original tints but no magnescope scenes - I could only imagine what can of worms that would have opened for us
 

---

Posted by Gene Stavis (Member # 110) on 08-03-2008, 05:00 PM:
 
Magnascope was simply a matter of changing the lens to a shorter focal length and having a screen large enough to register the larger image. To the best of my knowledge, there was no difference in the film itself. The system was used as late as Selznick's "Portrait of Jennie".
 

---

Posted by Bernard Tonks (Member # 809) on 08-03-2008, 06:56 PM:
 
Ralph,

Magnascope was a simple projection process that is not even mentioned on Martin Hart’s The American WideScreen Museum. Reproduced as follows is the article in the book The Complete Projectionist by R. Howard Cricks, F.R.P.S (1943).

Magnascope Effects

A favourite effect in some cinemas is the “Magnascope” or wide-screen effect, in which the width and height of the screen may be increased by 75 per cent. for the presentation of special scenes- large crowd or stage scenes, certain types of shots in the news film, and so on. This is achieved by the variable focus zoom lens in conjunction with which is used an elaborate system of moving screen masking, by hand or motorised. If the alteration in lens focus carefully follows the enlargement of the screen, a very striking effect can be achieved; in certain types of scenes the screen masking should be opened out when objects are coming towards the camera, and the screen masking closed when they are moving away from it. These effects should however, be used with discretion; the projectionist or manager may be become so proud of the device that there is a risk of its being overdone and losing its novelty.

Variable Focus Zoom Lens.


Martin Hart name correction made.

[ 08-05-2008, 05:19 AM: Message edited by: Bernard Tonks ]
 

---

Posted by Ralph Martin (Member # 4876) on 08-04-2008, 05:09 PM:
 
That's amazing. It must have been quite a thing to see the picture oversize the original screen during particular scenes.

Now that I think of it -- there are some scenes that look peculiar. Like a plane flying into the camera and one of the characters is in a trench and crawls up to the camera so close it’s almost out of focus. I’ll bet that’s when the projectionist kicked in the “Magnascope.” That must have been fun back in 1927. It’s like those shots in 3-D movies where they make it a point to “throw” something at the audience for effect.

[ 08-04-2008, 11:43 PM: Message edited by: Ralph Martin ]
 

---

Posted by Ralph Martin (Member # 4876) on 08-06-2008, 01:33 PM:
 
I can’t believe all of the help I’m getting!!!

Magna-Tech sent me a 50mm lens instead of the 45mm. They felt they were being a bit too conservative with the size at first. The 50mm was perfect (same price).

They also sent me 2 aperture plates (no extra charge) and told me to send back the other if I didn’t need it. Well, guess what? I needed it. I ruined the first one by going to fast and filing a bit too far on one side. I slowed down a lot after that. It took me almost two hours to finish the second plate [insert laughter here] but I didn’t want to hurry and mess that one up as well. Taking my time made all the difference. It turned out great.

So we screened the entire print and the tech figured out the house light effects and the “curtain call” at the end. ---- The “curtain call” was cool. When the movie ends the lights go up – the audience applauds as the orchestra and I bow. Then we extend a hand motion to the screen and the lights dim as a portrait of the movie director appears on the screen. Nice touch!

The theater got tuxedos for their employees to wear on the performance nights. They bought a roll-out red carpet to extend from the parking lot outside all the way to the seating area for the movie. They're hanging model bi-planes from the ceiling in the lobby and all of their concession stands are offering special Wings Snack Combos.

I don’t think I could ask for anything more from Brenden Theaters or Magna-Tech in terms of their support for our project and I certainly THANK YOU ALL in this forum for your help and patience with a projector novice as myself.

Now for the real fun part: The performance.
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 08-06-2008, 03:22 PM:
 
Did the studios provide cue sheets for Magnascope effects? Presumably the zooming was supposed to be done at certain points in the action (as Ralph describes) rather than simply as a form of improvisation.
 

---

Posted by Jack Theakston (Member # 4484) on 08-07-2008, 10:26 AM:
 
My understanding is that there was some sort of cue sheet that was sent with the shippers specifying the location of the Magnascope sequence.

The system was created by a technician named Lorenzo Del Riccio, and the premiere film for the patented system was OLD IRONSIDES (1924). From what I understand, the actual system was abandoned in the '30s, but the same concept was used for a number of premiere engagements up to the '50s, with films like PORTRAIT OF JENNIE and NIAGARA using it. Obviously not any old neighborhood theater could do this effect-- only larger theaters that had the stage space to open up to a larger screen.

Del Riccio also invented the large-format system Magnafilm.
 

---

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 08-07-2008, 12:28 PM:
 
The Drexel Theatre in Bexley (Columbus), OH did something similar for NAPOLEON. On the 35mm print, when the 3 screen section came on, the 3 images filled the screen horizontally, but MUCH smaller vertically so all three images would fit on the screen. The Drexel had some white side panels put up next to the screen, and when the 3 screen section hit, the projectionist (yes, they had a union man at the time) operated a zoom-type lens to fill the screen and the panels. This was usually met with applause.
 

---

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 08-07-2008, 12:51 PM:
 
I can't wait to hear how this all turns out.
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 08-07-2008, 12:52 PM:
 
Thanks Jack. As with tinting and toning records and projection speed cue sheets, if only the pioneers of the film archive movement had placed as much emphasis on preserving related documentation as on preserving the films themselves, there would be so much more contextualising information at our fingertips now.
 

---

Posted by Jack Theakston (Member # 4484) on 08-07-2008, 02:27 PM:
 
Ironic, isn't it, that for the films that exist, so little paperwork survives, but with the films that don't, we can almost reconstruct them shot for shot?

For example, in my file on LONDON AFTER MIDNIGHT, I've got the shooting script, cutting continuity, cue sheet and reviews. That's practically the film right there... but it doesn't exist anymore!
 

---

Posted by Ralph Martin (Member # 4876) on 08-15-2008, 01:57 PM:
 
This is my final post to close a very interesting and rewarding experience for both my students and I.

We just finished our second and final live screening of WINGS last night and the turn-out was great.
The orchestra was in sync and there wasn’t a dry eye in the audience (WINGS is a very sad movie).

Along with the local dignitaries (the mayor, the police and fire chief) beauty pageant contestants in the area Miss America and Miss USA came with their full gowns, crowns and sashes with Miss Solano County, or miss - wherever section their competition was held – scrawled across.

The owner of the Brenden Theaters chain came up from Las Vegas and attended the movie.

BUT, this tops it all for us…

On the last night, when the audience was giving the orchestra a standing ovation we motioned to the screen where the projectionist displayed the late movie director, William Wellman’s portrait with cheers from the audience and something amazing happened…

William Wellman’s son and two grand children walked up to the orchestra to congratulate the kids! Mr. Wellman talked to us about his father and how proud he would have been to know that young people would take such a devoted interest in his work.

It was an experience my students and I and the whole community will never forget!

I want to thank everyone in this forum who took time to give me advice and guide me through the projection process. You all had a big role in making the production a success. I would have to guess that the movies in your theaters are a bit brighter than others. I know that the true shine in your projection booths doesn't come from your Xenon lamps!

Thanks again….

Ralph
 

---

Posted by Emma Tomiak (Member # 1862) on 08-15-2008, 10:40 PM:
 
That's just awesome in every way. Congrats on putting on a great show.
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 08-15-2008, 11:52 PM:
 
You're very muchly welcome! Once again, as with you, we're also perfectionists in our career and do feel good in putting on a good show for those who love to be entertained.

Please come back and visit and chat with us anytime here on Film-Tech.

Good luck as always ... thx-Monte
 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 08-16-2008, 02:42 AM:
 
Absolutely great, Ralph. It is a pleasure hearing such a positive story. I am sure that your students will take this experience of the power of film and music with them as a highlight of their school careers. You have given them a gift;
congratulations on a spectacular project.
 

---

Posted by Andy Frodsham (Member # 4061) on 08-16-2008, 02:56 AM:
 
Brilliant, Ralph!

One of those experiences that will stay with those children forever.
 

---

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 08-16-2008, 08:30 AM:
 
That is truly awesome! Congrats on a job well done to you and your kids! I can only imagine the pride and satisfaction you all must be feeling right now. I'm sure you won't ever forget this experience, and neither will the children nor the audience for that matter. And the kids will never forget you for working with them on it.

If you spend any time at all looking through this forum, you'll notice the common theme that showmanship is in a lot of ways lacking in our industry. And that stretches from the presentation side at the theater, up through the people who make the prints, through the movie makers themselves, and in some cases all the way up to the studio executives. So we are all very encouraged when young people take such an interest in film presentation in particular, but also putting on a good show in general. It sounds like your performance of Wings was amazing to behold, and if it wasn't so far away I would have been there myself.

Best of luck to you and your children on future endeavors, and please do pop in here from time to time and let us know what you're up to.
 

---