Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Saw V = PIER 59?

This is topic Saw V = PIER 59? 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=009570

Posted by Jon P. Inghram (Member # 4125) on 10-23-2008, 03:21 PM:

We just got our print of "Pier 59." The can says Saw 5, but everything on the actual print says PIER 59, except for the DTS disk and the flier. Very strange as normally the CAN has the fake title and the print is correct.

Posted by Benny Walters (Member # 4894) on 10-23-2008, 03:56 PM:

Also, all the labeling and info I searched online claims that its format is flat. However, looking at the film it looks to me like scope. Being that all the trailers that came with it are flat format as well I'm slightly confused.

Little help?

and that Pier 59 thing is just strange.... [Confused]

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 10-23-2008, 04:06 PM:

SAW IV also had the fake title printed on the heads and tails.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 10-23-2008, 04:47 PM:

Why?

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 10-23-2008, 07:22 PM:

To protect the films from them nasty little pirates... [Smile]

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 10-23-2008, 07:42 PM:

Yeah right. More like some dipshit at Lions Gate (or whatever studio makes all of the Saw movies) actually thinks someone will want to pirate their shitty movie so bad that they have to codename it for fear of a pirate physically stealing a print. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Laurie Higgins (Member # 4843) on 10-23-2008, 07:55 PM:

Posted by Laurie Higgins (Member # 4843) on 10-23-2008, 07:55 PM:

It looks scope because it's open matte.

Posted by Benny Walters (Member # 4894) on 10-23-2008, 08:09 PM:

Thanks for the info Laurie. [Smile]

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 10-23-2008, 08:30 PM:

The other "Saw" movies were in flat. Look at one of the other reel's head and see what the image looks like. Don't look at the first reel.

If the trailers in the can are in flat, pretty sure that the feature is.

Flat movies also use the open matt frame concept - it all depends how the camera(s) were set up when in photographing the film

Posted by Benny Walters (Member # 4894) on 10-23-2008, 08:58 PM:

Thanks as well Monte, I just didn't want to have to fix this after watching two copies of HSM 3...

[Frown]

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 10-23-2008, 09:07 PM:

Why is it so hard to work out if it's scope or flat? I don't get it. [Confused]

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 10-23-2008, 09:24 PM:

...interestingly, yet sad in the meantime John, some were never shown what the true difference between the two lens formats - on how the image looks like on a frame - squeezed image for a scope presentation, or a normal image for a flat presentation.

Just were taught on what is on the booking sheet, the can labels and what the contained trailers are lensed in. The worst is when they put it together, show it on the screen, then find out they either have the right or wrong lens in play....and play the wrong lens for almost the entire duration of the booking until someone comes out and mentions to the staff that the picture looks somewhat wrong.... [Eek!]

...and the staff still doesn't get it what's wrong. Now, that's definitely sad to see and hear about.

The actual easiest check is to look at the attached trailer's green tag: if squeezed lettering - a scope feature. Normal lettering for flat feature. But still, check with the other reels for lens confirmation.

Yet, no offense to Benny, for his question is genuine and honest.

Posted by Benny Walters (Member # 4894) on 10-23-2008, 10:06 PM:

Thanks again Monte, no offense taken.

I guess the simple rule of thumb is if its anamorphic (squeezed) then its Scope, everything else would be flat.

Although, I can't for the life of me ever remember seeing a flat print where the image looked like that...

Anyone else building/screening multiple prints of HSM3 tonight??? [Mad]

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 10-23-2008, 10:16 PM:

From our booking status, HSM3 is in flat. (sorry, I'm in a discount house and can't build the new movies coming in..)

Disney prob wanted to shoot this thing in flat for the continuation of their DVD releases of the same "High School Musical" series.

Posted by Benny Walters (Member # 4894) on 10-23-2008, 10:25 PM:

Yeah, HSM looks more like what I am used to for flat. Black bars between frames and a non-squeezed image.

I was just asking for curiosity sake though. This weekend is going to suck... [Mad]

Posted by Jon P. Inghram (Member # 4125) on 10-23-2008, 11:12 PM:

I might be completely wrong, but I thought I read once that the full-frame flat (no black bars) was the "technically correct" way to do flat?

Glad we only got one copy of Saw and HSM3 as we also have 5 other new prints. And we only have five screens. I am not a fan of film festivals... [Mad]

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 10-24-2008, 12:02 AM:

Oh okey...HSM3 is printed in 1.85/1 Hard Matt flat then since the comments of the "black bars" between each frame...

Film was made for digital releases since that is how digital projectors do their presentations .. in 1.85/1. Then, was printed in the same aspect ratio on film - why of the thick black bars.

-Monte

Posted by Andrew Bangs (Member # 4938) on 10-24-2008, 01:31 AM:

I was soooooo happy when we got our two prints of HSM 3 and Saw V (aka Pier 59, If they want to protect it from thieves why put the real name on the outside of the can???) early today. I was done with plenty of time even though Pride & Glory arrived around 6:00pm. Then the final screening of the Express had to go and tail wrap while I was down stairs putting up new posters and movie times. Oh yeah no one was in the theatre to tell us the the movies was not playing correct for the last oh 30 to 45 min.... [Eek!]

2hrs later the film is no longer a pile of spaghetti but safely back on it's patter. All ready to be taken down in the morning...

SHOOT ME NOW! [Confused]

Thank God I am off for the weekend having fun at the Ren Fair. [Big Grin]

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 10-24-2008, 01:52 AM:

quote: Monte L Fullmer
To protect the films from them nasty little pirates...

EPIC FAIL! The cans say Saw 5.

Posted by Laurie Higgins (Member # 4843) on 10-24-2008, 10:59 AM:

You can also look on IMDB.com to see specs on a film. That info is on the left hand side of the film's page, scroll down a bit. [Smile]

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 10-24-2008, 03:28 PM:

The IMDB is not reliable. (In fact it is worse than not reliable, because it is often wrong, but right just often enough that people come to trust it).

There is not a "correctness" issue for open matte versus hard matte. Both are perfectly acceptable.

The correct way to distinguish scope and flat is to actually look at a known image, such a person's head or body, and see if the aspect ratio requires a 2:1 stretch. With a little practice, this should be second nature. This is absolutely the best choice, because everything else can be wrong. (And, of course, if there are black bars above and below the image, it ought to be flat. But strange things can happen...)

Beyond that, check the leaders (first), check the Film-Tech Forums Feature Info and Trailer Attachments (FITA) section, check the enclosed trailers, check the cans, check the enclosed paperwork, the studio's web site, the cinematographer's blog, etc.

--jhawk