quote: Scott Norwood

---

Sub output should be normal, however.

---

quote: Scott Norwood

---

There should be no surround at all (even if the loudspeakers are capable of reproducing low frequencies), as the processor should high-pass tracks 2&4 before sending them to the surrounds (and low-pass them before sending to the sub).

---

And I didn't detect any surround. But...the film cans included a (hand-written) notation indicating "Stereo Surround" (see photo).



The "Stereo Surround" indication on the cans was interpreted by the projection staff to mean: play in Format 43. (As far as I know, there weren't any sound format indications on the leaders or any printed enclosure.) However, Dolby's master list of Dolby Stereo films lists Highlander as "70" (rather than "70SS"), which is one reason, along with not hearing any surround during the presentation, that I think the title is actually a Format 42 mix. But if it is, in fact, a Format 43 mix, and the staff played it properly, what then would explain not hearing any surround content?
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 08-19-2011, 12:48 AM:
 
Maybe two things:

1-The labeled can was for another print.. or,
2-The Staff didn't know the difference between the two formats.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-19-2011, 01:11 AM:
 
I've not ran that one in 70, but I find it odd the theater didn't pre-run the print (at which point if they had any sense of what they were doing would have noticed the lack of surrounds and thought to themselves "hmmm, maybe that red marker on the cans isn't the correct information...let's try format 42" and figured it out).
 

---

Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 08-19-2011, 08:42 AM:
 
I checked with an installer involved and was told it was a 650. Is there more than one 70mm screen?

If it is a 200, there could be a number of reasons for no subs aside for improper setup or installation. The 142 or 160 cards could be manually turned off for some reason, etc.

I could come up with more reasons, but aside from faults, even played in the wrong format, there should be subs present.
 

---

Posted by Edward Havens (Member # 4715) on 08-19-2011, 09:09 AM:
 
The American Cinematheque's Egyptian has two screens, but only one that is 70mm capable. Or, at least, I hope the 78 seat house isn't also 70mm capable.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 08-19-2011, 09:16 AM:
 
Scott is wrong, btw, a Format 42 print played in format 43 WILL have the bass section of the surround track played by the surrounds. Subwoofer/Bass Enhancement will be un affected by the format mix up, however.

With a CP200, a quick check for format 42/43 is to look at the meters...if Le/S/Re all track together when the S meter moves..it is likely Stereo surround. If, on the other hand, S moves but Le/Re don't...it is most definitely Format 42.

-Steve
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 08-19-2011, 11:50 AM:
 

quote: Brad Miller

---

I find it odd the theater didn't pre-run the print

---

quote: Sam D. Chavez

---

I checked with an installer involved and was told it was a 650.

---

The CP200 claim came from their Chief Projectionist minutes before I posted.

Although this may not be large or sharp enough to detect model numbers, here's a photo I took a couple of years ago of the audio racks of the Egyptian's main booth.


 

---

Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 08-19-2011, 05:26 PM:
 
No doubt picture shows a 200 with an aux rack. Maybe the other screen has the 650?

But we still don't know why no subs. Perhaps someone stole them or the amps is defective.

I notice DA20's. Is each projector on its own DA20, or are there more than two 35mm projectors?
 

---

Posted by Lionel Fouillen (Member # 1475) on 08-19-2011, 05:28 PM:
 
What is the processor between the DA20 and the DTS6D ?
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 08-20-2011, 11:58 AM:
 
Regarding the sound, it's still not clear if the presentation was faulty or if the movie just has a crappy audio mix. Anyway, in addition to the audio issues addressed, I'd like to mention that I found the picture portion of this presentation problematic. In this case, though, it was the lab's fault, not the theater's.

Highlander was a spherically-shot film (1.85:1), but the lab foolishly over-enlarged the image during the blow-up by filling the full width of the 70mm frame, thereby cropping a portion of the top and bottom of the image and making the image unnecessarily grainy and soft. The print itself was in mint condition, appearing to have been run only a handful of times.

So, overall, this was a disappointing presentation. I already dislike the movie, and this poor presentation didn't help. I had thought that seeing a 70mm presentation might give me a new appreciation for the movie. Nope.

If anyone's curious, the screening was in celebration of the film's 25th anniversary, and, as far as I know, was the first time it had been (commercially) screened in 70mm in the United States. This was the longer, original cut of the film, not the shortened version released by Fox. A Q&A with director Russell Mulcahy and producer Peter Davis followed the screening.

This 70mm print of Highlander is, in my opinion, a poor example of what can be achieved with 70mm, and I'm afraid now that this print has surfaced that other organizations will want to book it.
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 08-20-2011, 01:54 PM:
 
...and to add ..

How many of us remember when Metro took "Gone with the Wind" and did a 70mm release of this film and did the same as with this "Highlander" release: made it full frame, thus did a lot of cropping from the original image .. and that was from a 1.37:1 frame image.
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 08-20-2011, 05:11 PM:
 
The framing on that 70mm blow-up of Gone With The Wind wasn't unique. That blow-up technique was common with spherically-shot productions during the 1960s and 1970s. I had thought, though, that by the 1980s, with a few exceptions, that technique had been phased out in favor of pillarboxing the sides (which is why I was surprised by the image on Highlander, a mid-80s release).
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 08-20-2011, 05:51 PM:
 
..like "E.T." and "Arachnophobia" - both blown up to 70mm releases and pillarboxed within the frame to keep the ratio intact.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 08-20-2011, 06:48 PM:
 
However, WARGAMES was a 1.85 movie blown up to full-frame 2.2 70mm in 1983.
 

---

Posted by Lionel Fouillen (Member # 1475) on 08-20-2011, 06:55 PM:
 
Terminator 2 (1991) is another example. Shot in Super35, blown-up to 2.20 in 70.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-20-2011, 07:25 PM:
 
Terminator 2 isn't a good example though, as it was shot with the intention of cropping all the way down to 2.4:1.
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 08-20-2011, 11:55 PM:
 

quote: Steve Guttag

---

WARGAMES was a 1.85 movie blown up to full-frame 2.2 70mm in 1983.

---