Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: TOO LATE

This is topic TOO LATE - 35mm only release 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=011931

Posted by Matt Miller (Member # 9259) on 01-13-2016, 04:30 PM:

Hello, my name is Matt Miller and I’m the producer of a film called TOO LATE starring John Hawkes. We will be releasing TOO LATE exclusively on 35mm this March and April in theaters across the country. You can read more about it here.

While not a member here, the director of TOO LATE is a long time follower of the Film Handler's forum and he recently tipped me to this site and the thread on The Hateful Eight release in particular, which I am now catching up on.

Although our release will be smaller in scale, and we realize 70mm is a very different beast than 35mm, we want to do everything we can to ensure all goes as smoothly as possible. We know there’s a lot of collective knowledge and experience in this forum, so we wanted to introduce ourselves and the project and let you know that if any of you have any advice, ideas, comments or questions, we’re listening, and we would greatly appreciate any insight you have to offer.

Thanks so much for your time.

Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 01-13-2016, 04:51 PM:

Hi Matt!
This is exciting! You just came to the right place for the best advice. Any plans for Canada? I would love to play this at our single screen theater in London Ontario.
One thing I can add right now is to seek out those single screen cinemas that maintained 35mm capability because they cared about it.
There are a few of us out here.
Best of luck! [Smile]

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 01-13-2016, 05:28 PM:

Sounds like a fun project.

Here is a list of film-capable venues, most of which can run 35mm. Many of these are not commercial cinemas, but you can start by calling the ones that are to see if they want to play your film.

Lots of people in this business still love film and actively maintain the equipment and personnel needed to show it properly.

Posted by Buck Wilson (Member # 5885) on 01-13-2016, 11:07 PM:

Fantastic! Welcome! You'll never stop learning about exhibition/film as long as you're here!

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 01-13-2016, 11:50 PM:

Two things I noticed about the print of this movie we showed at Beyondfest last year.

1 - It had no changeover cues. We have the equipment (a scriber and footage counter) needed to scribe changeover cues in the proper place and on the right frames, but not every changeover house will. Many of the remaining 35mm-capable theaters are changeover houses. If you don't want grease pencil slashes, hole punches etc. to end up on the prints, which will make the end of each reel very noticeable to the audience, it might be an idea to have FotoKem scribe all of the release prints before they ship.

2 - Again, on the print we had, the SVA track was cyan dye. There may be some theaters still around that do not have Dolby digital, and use white light readers for analog sound. Your prints will sound very bad if they end up in such a booth, so it might be worth the distributor checking with every theater booking it, to make sure that either they have "red light" analog readers, or Dolby digital capability, and ideally both.

Posted by Matt Miller (Member # 9259) on 01-14-2016, 02:47 AM:

Thank you all for the advice! We are definitely targeting theaters that still run 35mm on at least a semi-regular basis, some of which are single screen cinemas.

Victor, we have already booked one theater in Canada with hopefully more to be confirmed soon. Which theater in London, ON are you referring to? If you or any other theaters are interested in booking TOO LATE, please reach out to our booking agent Michael Tuckman: michael [at] mtuckmanmedia [dot] com

Leo, great point about the soundtrack. We will definitely look into that.

As far as the changeover cues, there were indeed cue marks on the print that played at the Egyptian. We've had Fotokem scribe every print we've ordered. Here's the tricky part with our film. Because of the way it was shot (five really long scenes separated by several seconds of black), there are a few seconds of black footage at the heads and tails of each reel which is part of the movie. While the first set of cue marks always appears over image, the second set usually appears after we have cut to black (though the cues are still very much visible). I know the director wrote this information out for Beyond Fest to forward to the projectionist, but I don't know if it ever reached you.

This has not typically been a problem for changeover shows, but it has become a problem at platter houses. So far two of our prints have been plattered, and both times the were leaders were cut in the wrong places, resulting in either missing audio or hearing the 2-pop. The director and I were just discussing earlier today that perhaps we should mark each print designated for plattering with "Cut Here" markings. Is there perhaps a better way that we can indicate the exact frame for a projectionist to splice when the reel changes all take place within several feet of black frames?

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 01-14-2016, 11:02 AM:

The obvious way would be to print the first few frames of the runout totally transparent, but that would guarantee a visible glitch in the event of a slightly late changeover if the print is played R2R.

The only solution I can think of is a note in the shipping cases explaining that every reel ends in a fade out, combined with a "Cut here if plattering" instruction, with an arrow pointing to a given frame line, at the start of the runout. But again, it'll be visible on the screen if the print is run R2R and the changeover is done slightly late. At any rate, a note (taped to the interior of the Goldberg boxes would probably be the safest way to ensure that it didn't get lost) explaining that all the reels end on fades to black and that they mustn't be cut on visible picture footage, might help. If the frame lines aren't clearly visible on the fades, there is the risk that the prints will be cut and spliced out of rack by platter operators.

I'm 99.9% sure that our Beyondfest print was uncued, and that there was no documentation in the cases that arrived. I didn't show it, but I did do the first check. Our usual operating procedure is that projectionist #1 examines each reel, writes down basic information about it and leaves it tail out on a house reel for projectionist #2, who then checks and verifies that technical information and makes any necessary repairs while rewinding it, and then operates the actual show. Only if a print arrives very close to showtime will the same projectionist do both stages. Our thinking is that two pairs of eyes (and fingertips) stand a better chance of catching a subtle problem that one might miss, especially during festivals and other high pressure times when lots of prints and DCPs are going through the booth quickly.

Whenever I receive a new FotoKem print now I look very carefully for cue marks or the absence of them, because I know that they don't put cues on unless asked to by the customer buying the print. For that Beyondfest show I was projectionist #1 (i.e. I checked the print but did not actually play it on the night), and remember leaving a note for my co-worker saying "Watch out - this one is uncued". If it actually was and I missed them because of the fades at the reel ends, I guess that's a vindication of our "two pairs of eyes" approach.

Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 01-14-2016, 12:32 PM:

I'm at the Hyland Cinema which is the last theater that can run film in London. The Mayfair in Ottawa is also a gem off the top of my head.
A note about the fade-outs will work with any good projectionist but is a problem with those who should never touch film.
[Frown]

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 01-14-2016, 01:08 PM:

quote: Victor Liorentas
A note about the fade-outs will work with any good projectionist but is a problem with those who should never touch film.

You can make a crude value judgement like that (by the same token, you could say that manual transmissions will work with any good driver but are a problem for someone who should never get behind the wheel), or recognize that they place additional demands on the projectionist, and if necessary educate him or her to meet them.

If the print is being plattered, you've got to cut the starts and ends in the right place, which may not be immediately and visibly obvious. If the frame lines are difficult to see, this means that you need a footage and frame counter, and to know what to do with it.

If you're playing it R2R, it means that you have to pay attention not to thread the incoming reel too far down the leader, or you will clip off some of the fade in after the changeover. This in turn means having an accurate idea of the ramp-up time of the motor, and how many image frames are present on the outgoing reel after the last over cue frame. If some are missing due to platter ID frames having been lost during repeated building up and packing off, which is a common issue with older, heavily used prints, you'll have to allow for this either in the threading of the incoming reel, or the timing of when you punch the buttons. You'll also have to be familiar with the frame sequence of both Academy and SMPTE leaders.

If the reel end comes in the middle of a static shot without music or dialog at the actual moment, then the audience is never going to notice the loss of a few frames, either in the cutting and building of a print, or in the execution of a changeover. Such a reel end has more inherent resistance against lack of attention to detail, however the print is being played. But if there is music or dialog, or if the reel end happens on a fade, then a lot more care and precision is needed.

Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 01-14-2016, 02:06 PM:

I should have said a really good projectionist with common sense should be able to drive a manual transmission with or without a note but truthfully I don't know how some truck drivers ever got a license.
In 25 years I've always gotten prints where the previous operator cut the fade in/out on the image Wrongly.
Crash and burn!

I'm hoping the remaining projectionists in 2016 can drive without incident.

Posted by Matt Miller (Member # 9259) on 01-14-2016, 02:23 PM:

Yes, Leo, I think that's what happened. I can only say with certainty that there were cue marks because I had seen that print projected before. It was the same print we played at our world premiere at LACMA as well as several private screenings at the Cinefamily. So I think you did miss the cue marks, but it's our fault for not including our projection notes inside the shipping case.

Our prints do indeed have unique attributes that place additional demands on the projectionist. We're aware that having changeovers during a fade to black (or in our case, a hard cut to black) is typically ill advised, but because each reel of our film is comprised of one long un-cut shot, there was literally no other place to put the reel breaks.

We definitely plan to get better at including these notes inside the shipping case. We often send them in email form (as Dennis did with Beyond Fest), but there's no guarantee they will reach the projectionist. What I heard happened (secondhand) at Beyond Fest was that the projectionist (presumably #2) marked his own cues on a couple reels before noticing that the print was already cued.

Those are good ideas for plattering and I will definitely bring them up with the team. I'm wondering though if the best thing would be to pre-cut (and reattach) the leaders before we ship them to any platter theaters, so there's no question of where to cut?

Victor, we're actually already booked at The Mayfair. I don't know how close London and Ottawa are to each other and if there's sufficient demand to play at both theaters, but I will bring up the Hyland Cinema with our booker.

Thanks all. This has already been incredibly helpful.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 01-14-2016, 02:49 PM:

Thats great and all, but you are sure limiting the depth of your release by doing so.

Mark

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 01-14-2016, 04:00 PM:

quote: Victor Liorentas
In 25 years I've always gotten prints where the previous operator cut the fade in/out on the image Wrongly.

Me too, which is one of the reasons why many archives won't allow their prints to be plattered. Most of the 35mm prints still in circulation are of rep/re-release titles, and have many cycles of being built up and packed off behind them, with an ID frame sacrificed each time. I've just finished preparing one in which the third frame with a lab-printed "over" cue is the last frame of the reel, before the run-out footage begins. Even if I were to punch the button reflexively on seeing the first over frame, I don't think it would be fast enough to prevent a flash of black on the screen, so there was nothing for it but to re-cue that one.

quote: Victor Liorentas
I'm hoping the remaining projectionists in 2016 can drive without incident.

All the evidence suggests that this is being over-optimistic. 12 out of the 15 5/70 prints of Interstellar scratched ... a significant number of the Hateful Eight prints damaged in accidents. Many of the "nearly new" prints that pass through my booths bear the hallmarks of careless handling, including one of Son of Saul that I actually rejected and asked for a replacement of, because so much Whiteout had been painted on the first and last 10 feet or so of each reel (yes, that much) that the SR-D dropped out. That was done by someone in the last couple of months.

Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 01-14-2016, 04:24 PM:

I truly hate those who use white out on film. It's true that many out there disregard the little details which ruin a show.
It makes me crazy! [Mad]

On the other hand,it seems that some or most projectionists put some good effort forth with The Hateful Eight.
The impression I get so far is the Interstellar nonsense didn't happen this time around. Not like I worried it would.

Posted by Dave Bird (Member # 490) on 01-14-2016, 09:56 PM:

Our outdoor is about 45 min from the Mayfair. In theory we could run 35mm, though I would need to find one of those "Sword" units I think they were called, no room for the platter anymore. Maybe I'll just visit the Mayfair...

Posted by Kenneth Wuepper (Member # 1174) on 01-15-2016, 09:51 PM:

Hello Victor,

Scott Norwood has supplied you with a list of the places and people that care about film. I know the venues in Michigan and there are skilled technicians and projectionists tending excellent equipment. Every inch of film is hand inspected before it is placed into the projectors. The films are not spliced and the leaders are left intact.

Many of these venues are restored picture palaces where films were not just projected but there is a "show" to be enjoyed.

Perhaps you might consider helping these venues to preserve the exhibition of 35mm films as well as the picture palaces in which they are enjoyed.

Once there is a financial penalty for abusing the distributor's prints, the attitude toward film damage will change over night. Inspecting your prints after each exhibitor will soon weed out those destroying them and you can penalize and/or remove them from your distribution list.

Perhaps you could hire these remaining theatres to have their booth staff do your inspections as a source of income since there are no more exchanges performing that task.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 01-17-2016, 12:18 PM:

quote: Kenneth Wuepper
Once there is a financial penalty for abusing the distributor's prints, the attitude toward film damage will change over night.

That attitude change will be that venues will stop showing film, because they'll be unable to take on the increased financial risk of an accident.

I'd like to believe that we are very careful film handlers and would only cause accidental damage to a print once in a blue moon. Nevertheless, this happened last fall with an archival print (the retaining flange on the feed spindle popped open, the reel fell off and the film broke), and the archive charged us for a reprint of the entire reel. As a direct result of that incident, we have decided that whenever we request a title from this archive in future, if they have both a DCP and a film print available, we'll take the DCP.

Posted by Kenneth Wuepper (Member # 1174) on 01-17-2016, 01:14 PM:

Leo,

There are ways to assist with "accidental damage". It is called insurance. But no insurer will accept liability for reckless damage by poorly maintained equipment or unskilled operation.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 01-17-2016, 01:58 PM:

I'm not sure if anyone would insure a theater against accidental film print damage, or that even if they would, the premiums and deductibles wouldn't be prohibitively high.

I'm simply pointing out that the growing trend by archives in particular to take a zero tolerance approach to film handling in theaters (which is what you seem to be advocating), and to regard what would previously have been considered acceptable wear and tear as unacceptable damage, will result in fewer public film screenings taking place; not least because many of the theaters that do retain film projection capability are small businesses and non-profits that are not able to absorb a print replacement bill.

Even now that film projection has become a boutique/specialty operation, negligent film handling practice is still happening. As I mentioned earlier, I was recently sent a print of Son of Saul in which the first and last 10 feet or so of each reel was covered in fingerprints and Whiteout deposits, and the splices had just been torn open when the print had been packed off - (s)he hadn't even bothered to reattach the heads and tails. I don't know if Sony Classics took this up with the theater that did this after we reported it to them, but if it's place I think it is (judging from the address labels on the Goldbergs, I think I know where it is, but don't feel comfortable naming online), then they would take a very serious financial hit if asked to replace the print.

I am not advocating or defending poor film handling, just pointing out that there is a law of unintended consequences aspect to print owners taking a zero tolerance line. Even if audiences want 35mm or 70mm, theaters are not going to try to offer it if doing so represents such a big financial risk to them. For the last few major film releases (e.g. Interstellar), the distributors seem to have taken the line that some prints will be damaged and that there is an acceptable attrition rate that they're prepared to absorb. If that approach changes, the number of venues willing to try to play film is going to diminish even further.

Posted by David J Hilsgen (Member # 2614) on 01-17-2016, 05:58 PM:

Matt These theatres were not on the minneasota 35MM list i did email sprocketschool

Quarry cinema ,cold spring
Muller Willow creek 12 ,plymouth Has curtains
Muller Lakeville 21 theatres
Long Drive In, long prairie

all are in place ready to run all have dolby digital & dts except the d.i ,i service all these theatres,any? you can email me at

Posted by Kenneth Wuepper (Member # 1174) on 01-18-2016, 07:38 PM:

Hello Leo,

Thank you for stating so very vividly why repertory film should not be supplied to exhibitors with platters. All of the damage and poor practices you described are connected to poor platter projection.

Simply put, don't submit your prints to anyone that will cut them.

When a theatre receives a previously damaged print the projectionist should report immediately the condition to the distributor.

I have personally eMailed to the distributor pictures of the damage discovered upon opening the shipping container. If the few dollars royalty from the theatre that caused the damage is worth the cost of a print then that is the distributor's decision. On several occasions we demanded a replacement print or the screen would go dark. (That, like a failure of the equipment, is an insurable event for the cinema)

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 01-18-2016, 11:57 PM:

quote: Kenneth Wuepper
On several occasions we demanded a replacement print or the screen would go dark. (That, like a failure of the equipment, is an insurable event for the cinema)

Are you seriously trying to suggest that any insurer would pay out for a lost show claim if the theater received a print that was in poor condition but playable, and chose not to play it? If a reel was missing or the print arrived in Goldbergs half full of water (in other words, you did not receive what was needed to put on any show at all) then maybe. But if you received a print like the Son of Saul one I did, requested a replacement, the distributor could not or would not provide one and you then decided to cancel the show because the print you had did not enable you to present the film to the standards you wish to offer your customers, I'd be very surprised if any insurer would cover that; especially given the number of prints in that condition that are circulating, and in particular of repertory titles.

As for platters being at the root of all evil, I have shown many prints that have never been built up (no splices at the heads and tails) but still have been substantially damaged, usually when failure to clean the projector's film path properly results in all the even numbered reels or all the odd numbered reels getting scratched. Yesterday evening I showed one that had been built up, but looked spotless.

Posted by Kenneth Wuepper (Member # 1174) on 01-19-2016, 07:23 PM:

One print that comes to mind was very playable. That is the sprocket holes were in tact and the film arrived fastened to the mountings. We did not subject our audience to it because there were base scratches that looked like black rain (caused by running the film over a stalled sound drum for two weeks at the previous theater) Then there were these two bright green vertical stripes about two feet in from both sides of the masking. Just for effect there were diagonal green scratches that floated throughout the picture from bottom to top.

Posted by Matt Miller (Member # 9259) on 02-01-2016, 12:59 PM:

Hey all,

We've been busy booking theaters across North America and are excited to post our initial theater list in the coming weeks.

In the meantime, our theaters in NYC and Kansas City may need us to bring in an outside projectionist to assist during our runs there. If anyone here is interested or can recommend someone local to help out, please contact me offsite for more info.

Thanks!

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 02-01-2016, 01:23 PM:

Hey Kenneth,

Not really picking on you specifically, but the general concept here.

I'm just not understanding how a stalled soundhead was the platter's fault since your general opinion is that platters damage film and not using them doesn't.

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 02-01-2016, 01:59 PM:

re: Insurance for lost shows. I've never looked for any, but given our usual house size, there would have to be almost no deductible. If we could bill the insurance company for a full house every time, I'd be ordering up bad prints every week. [evil]

Posted by Kenneth Wuepper (Member # 1174) on 02-01-2016, 02:40 PM:

Hello Brad,

The premise is operators that cut and splice the distributor's product are the first step in causing damage. That goes for inserting intermissions, adding trailers, making the film useful on big reels or even a continuous length for platters.

The case in point was that the film was able to be run, that is to traverse the machine but was still not suitable for charging someone to watch it.

The fact was that the stalled sound drum had damaged the entire length of the print and severely from repeated passes. The distributor questioned the place where it happened. They said that they didn't notice the frozen drum as they used the digital sound and only ran the film through the old optical parts for a backup. The base side scratches looked like black rain.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 02-01-2016, 05:20 PM:

quote: Kenneth Wuepper
The premise is operators that cut and splice the distributor's product are the first step in causing damage.

[...]

The fact was that the stalled sound drum had damaged the entire length of the print and severely from repeated passes.

Sorry, but cutting the heads and tails off each reel is not the first step in causing that damage. Letting the scanning drum's shaft seize up without noticing was the first step there. That damage would still have been done if it had been playing changeovers. I grant you that if, and this is a very big if, the theater always played odd numbered reels on one projector and the evens on the other, then only half the print would have been damaged (assuming that the other projector hadn't been suffering from similar neglect, which it probably would have been).

Checking that every roller which contacts the film spins freely and has not seized is a very basic, 101, start-of-the-shift check that any self-respecting projectionist should do. If you have a booth in which none of the projectionists do this, repeatedly, over many days, then film is going to get damaged in that booth, regardless of what equipment is in use.

quote: Kenneth Wuepper
The case in point was that the film was able to be run, that is to traverse the machine but was still not suitable for charging someone to watch it.

The issue here is that assessing that suitability is a subjective decision. You may believe that it's not suitable for charging someone to watch it, but an insurance loss adjuster might not agree with you, and, of course, will try his or her damnedest to avoid coughing up.

Posted by Matthew Chin-Quee (Member # 6476) on 02-23-2016, 10:12 AM:

The Sundance Sunset Theater in West Hollywood still shows 35mm Films. I just got a hired as one of their 35mm film projectionists

Posted by Matt Miller (Member # 9259) on 03-03-2016, 05:57 PM:

Hey Matthew, thanks for posting here. The Sundance West Hollywood will be our first city/theater for the TOO LATE release, so I'm sure we'll be meeting in person soon. Are you in Los Angeles now? Would love to buy you a drink before we open.

For anyone who's interested, our first wave of theaters has been announced. You can view the entire list at http://www.toolatemovie.com which will be updated as more theaters are added. If anyone here is affiliated with any of the theaters where TOO LATE will be playing, feel free to say hi!

3/18/16 - Los Angeles, CA - Sundance Cinemas Sunset 5
3/25/16 - Austin, TX - Alamo Drafhouse South Lamar
4/01/16 - New York, NY - Village East Cinema
4/08/16 - Berkeley, CA - Rialto Cinemas Cerrito
4/08/16 - San Francisco, CA - Alamo Drafthouse New Mission
4/08/16 - San Jose, CA - Bluelight Cinemas
4/08/16 - Houston, TX - Alamo Drafthouse Vintage Park
4/08/16 - Dallas, TX - Texas Theatre
4/15/16 - Kansas City, MO - Alamo Drafthouse Mainstreet
4/15/16 - Portland, OR - Hollywood Theatre
4/15/16 - Seattle, WA - Grand Illusion Cinema
4/22/16 - Denver, CO - Sie Film Center
4/22/16 - Pittsburgh, PA - Melwood Screening Room
4/22/16 - Atlanta, GA - Landmark Midtown Art Cinema
4/22/16 - Chicago, IL - Facets Cinematheque
4/22/16 - Columbus, OH - Gateway Cinemas
4/29/16 - Vancouver, BC - Vancity Theatre
4/29/16 - Santa Fe, NM - Center for Contemporary Art
4/29/16 - Tulsa, OK - Circle Cinema
4/29/16 - Ottawa, ON - Mayfair Theatre
4/29/16 - Toronto, ON - The Royal
5/06/16 - Paducah, KY - Maiden Alley Cinema
5/06/16 - Boston, MA - Brattle Theatre

Posted by Stephan Shelley (Member # 8587) on 03-03-2016, 06:05 PM:

The Berkeley engagement is in El Cerrito. The Rialto Cinemas theatre in Berkeley does not have 35 mm capabilities anymore. The El Cerrito theatre does.

Posted by Matt Miller (Member # 9259) on 03-11-2016, 12:59 AM:

Thanks Stephan. We'll fix the listing.

Everyone, feel free to watch the first entry in our series of TOO LATE featurettes: "Why 35mm": http://deadline.com/2016/03/cast-crew-of-neo-noir-too-late-talk-exclusive-35mm-release-1201716626/

Posted by Buck Wilson (Member # 5885) on 03-11-2016, 07:07 AM:

Oh man this is so exciting! Calendar is marked!

Posted by Ed Inman (Member # 2583) on 03-16-2016, 05:51 PM:

Hi Matt, Congratulations on the film. I only have one question: I saw the video on facebook about how you were shooting continuous 20-minute takes with 1000 feet of 35mm film. How is that possible? Assuming you were shooting at standard 24 fps 1000' of 35mm film runs for 11 min., 7 sec. using 4-perf frames. Even if you shoot 3-perf that only lengthens the time to 14 min., 49 sec. It just doesn't seem to add up unless I'm missing something. Thanks in advance for any clarification you can offer. --Ed

Posted by Shawn M. Martin (Member # 6762) on 03-16-2016, 06:11 PM:

They shot 2-perf. Just over 22 minutes per 1000 feet.

Posted by Ed Inman (Member # 2583) on 03-16-2016, 06:18 PM:

Interesting. Never heard of such. I assumed they must have used two cameras and as seamlessly as possible switched over half way through.

Posted by Stephan Shelley (Member # 8587) on 03-16-2016, 06:30 PM:

It is known as techniscope. Was popular as a cinemascope alternative in the 60s. Lower resiloution that cinemascope.

Posted by Matt Miller (Member # 9259) on 03-17-2016, 01:53 PM:

Hi Ed, and thanks! Shawn and Stephan are correct. We shot in the Techniscope (aka "2-perf") format. Basically, each shot in TOO LATE is the length of an entire reel (roughly 20-22 minutes).

There are no hidden cuts, no digital stitching or anything like that. Everything was accomplished in camera and on set with the crew. The camera rig was so heavy that we had to use two steadicam operators who would handoff the camera mid-take like a baton so that one could rest while the other continued the second half of the shot.

You can see how we did it in this behind the scenes featurette:

TOO LATE: "Steadicam Handoff" Featurette

Posted by Daniel Schulz (Member # 1881) on 03-20-2016, 01:53 AM:

quote: Stephan Shelley
It is known as techniscope. Was popular as a cinemascope alternative in the 60s. Lower resiloution that cinemascope.

Techniscope was especially popular for spaghetti Westerns.

I am going to see this with my wife on Sunday, 3/20 at the Sundance Cinemas in West Hollywood. Thanks Mr. Miller for engaging with the forum, and thanks for helping to bring this to the screen on film!

Posted by Tyler Purcell (Member # 9213) on 03-23-2016, 02:42 AM:

Hey guys, so I saw Too Late in 35 at the Sunset 5 tonight. I've been looking forward to seeing it, not just for the 35 projection, but also the 2 perf AND 20 minute takes.

Unfortunately, the print looked like it was dragged along the floor for quite sometime. Reel's one and two were solid/deep scratches. Reel three and four weren't so bad, but reel five was toast as well. Again, to me it looked like cinch marks, same complaint I had with the Star Wars screening at the Vista. I can't imagine a projector making those scratches, they were so deep, right into the color layers on reel five. What kills me is that the print wasn't dirty, it was just scratched. Also, the projectionist never bothered focusing it, even after I complained. He went back, did a small tweak, but it was absolutely out of focus.

I was very dismayed with the screening because honestly, we're suppose to be film advocates which means, we need to make sure what we show is absolute top notch. The filmmakers spent all this time creating this film in 35mm to benefit the format and tell a story in an unconventional way. It was clearly a lot of work and to see it wasted by a bad print, it just ticked me off. I don't see how anyone would come out of that screening happy with the results of the filmmakers hard work.

I know how hard it is to get a film distributed/released, especially with only a few recognizable cast members. It's even harder to get 35mm releases today, which makes the road Too Late took, even more remarkable. With that said, I feel the filmmakers could have spent a bit more time on the script and focused less on the single shot gimmick. To me, a lot of great moments were wasted due to the nature of the photography process. Sure, it draws people like myself to go and see how it came out, but the vast majority of audiences don't care and it does hurt the film. Why? Well because it's impossible to light for 20 minute takes outside in daylight for instance. It's also impossible to properly pace scenes AND I felt the acting lacked due to the nerves of the cast members trying to get through yet another 20 minute take. So as a consequence of the gimmick, the film was a bit weaker.

I was also a bit dismayed that it was DI print. I could tell right away it wasn't done photochemically, some bright highlights were blown out with noise and that just doesn't happen with a photochemical finish. Once you go DI, you might as well project digitally, you don't GAIN anything from scanning negative and printing back to film, you actually loose quality. I gather the filmmakers choose DI because they were shooing 2 perf (due to the long takes) and if I know FotoKem, they over-charge for the optical blow up and claim it looks bad so it drives people away from making it. They want the easy way out, which means 4k scan, digital finish and film-out. If it were my movie, I would have forgotten the gimmick and stuck to a complete photochemical finish, which in my opinion, would have made it A LOT BETTER, for sure less grainy, absolutely better performances for the weaker cast members and more interesting because you can build pacing better.

So yea, those are just my thoughts and I'm sorry if they aren't all positive. It was well worth watching to see what other young filmmakers are doing today with their low budget movies and I learned quite a bit from the screening and the direction I will take with my upcoming projects.

Posted by Daniel Schulz (Member # 1881) on 03-23-2016, 09:53 AM:

quote:
Reel's one and two were solid/deep scratches. Reel three and four weren't so bad, but reel five was toast as well. <snip>

I was also a bit dismayed that it was DI print.

Yeah, those Reel 1 and 2 scratches were really bad.

I was at a screening with an audience Q&A and asked about the DI - according to the director, the original plan was to do a photochemical finish, but when they hit postproduction they couldn't find a lab that could/would do the optical blowup. They were told that the printers could not be adjusted to accommodate 2-perf. One suspects that if it were Christopher Nolan a way could have been found, but for a low budget independent film the labs were not going to go out of their way to figure out a workaround.

Posted by Tyler Purcell (Member # 9213) on 03-23-2016, 01:03 PM:

Right, FotoKem just made an excuse; "it can't be done" because they don't care. Lets face it, if it weren't for 65/70mm work, they would have closed their lab years ago. Every time I talk with them, they have zero interest in helping people with photochemical finishes. I've had arguments about negative cutters, they'd say "Ohh we don't have anyone anymore" and I'm like really? What about Quentin and Christopher's movies? They just make excuses why they can't do things.

I would have talked with Robert @ Cinelab in Boston. He would have figured out a way to make it work.

Posted by Markus Lemm (Member # 3456) on 03-23-2016, 01:42 PM:

Hey Everybody,
I'm the Projectionist at the Mayfair Theatre here in Ottawa, Canada. I can confirm that we will be screening 'Too Late' starting April 29th. Looking forward to running 35mm again. I can guarantee that it will not be plattered, as we have never owned a platter. That being said I hope we get a nice clean print.
Just wondering if anyone knows how many prints were made?

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 03-23-2016, 02:27 PM:

quote: Tyler Purcell
Every time I talk with them, they have zero interest in helping people with photochemical finishes.

Really? When did this change? In 2014, Foto-kem was very helpful to me with two 16mm shorts, including both 16mm prints and 35mm optical blowups. I dealt with Walt Rose and Denise Marquis there and they were both terrific to work with. And I was very much a small-time customer.

Honestly, I don't see the problem with photochemical finishing of a film. Any lab should be able to do this and it is cheaper than a DI. What is actually harder is trying to find someone who can shoot titles optically on an Oxberry animation stand. I ended up finding an animator in Pittsburgh who had the requisite skills and equipment, both of which are now in short supply. Even animators who do hand-drawn work are scanning the drawings and working on computers now. This has been the case for the last decade or so, leaving very few Oxberrys and skilled animation cameramen behind.

Posted by Danny Baldwin (Member # 6553) on 03-28-2016, 09:39 PM:

Yeeeesh, I also just saw it at the Sunset 5 and that print was more beat-up than any I've seen in the last few years. Every reel was scratched; I think 3 and 4 were just less noticeable because the lighting is darker. The projectionist was completely out of focus for the first reel and after that, it wasn't perfect, only tolerable. Too bad they couldn't score an ArcLight Hollywood opening. Loved the idea, but I wished I had been watching a DCP given the circumstances.

Posted by Simon Wyss (Member # 6218) on 03-29-2016, 02:16 AM:

There were Simplex projectors with angle telescopes. Spyglasses are not a luxury in a booth.

Severe exams should be reintroduced for film projectionists worldwide. Makes me so angry to read about such sloppyness

Posted by Tyler Purcell (Member # 9213) on 03-29-2016, 12:24 PM:

Kills me that every reel had a different set of issues as well. Which means that print had been shown using two projectors before and most likely it was those guys who damaged it so badly.

Posted by Markus Lemm (Member # 3456) on 04-12-2016, 05:41 PM:

Just got our print of 'Too Late'! Brand new print and no splices. Looks great. Will be running the print using 20 minute manual change-over to preserve the print; the way we used to do it.

Come and see it at the Mayfair, April 29-May 5.

Posted by Rachael Barbash (Member # 5158) on 04-18-2016, 02:53 PM:

I just started building this and I'm a little confused. I'm hoping someone else who has built/seen the Too Late print could give me a little input. Each reel seems to have a small portion of black before the changeover cue. Whoever had this print before us already cut in I'm assuming the correct spots except for one, where they cut right where the image stopped but before the changeover cue. So that made me nervous. I'm wondering if that was a mistake or they were told to cut there. Has anyone else built this print?

Posted by Tim Linehan (Member # 9429) on 04-18-2016, 11:25 PM:

The cues on black are intended/correct: some (or was it all?) reels cut to black before the changeover. Hope you have a print that is in better shape - the one I screened a month or so ago was the horribly scratched one. I'd have run DCP if it was an option.

Posted by Rachael Barbash (Member # 5158) on 04-19-2016, 10:20 AM:

The first reel and end of the second reel are pretty rough but the rest seems fine. We're also playing the short Sunday Punch, which is a short from 2010 from the same director (and it seems to be part of the same story as Too Late?) and that reel was brand new. It arrived in a plastic wrapped canister on a plastic core.

Posted by Matt Miller (Member # 9259) on 04-19-2016, 12:19 PM:

Hi Rachael, this is Matt Miller, producer for TOO LATE. Let me know if i can talk you through the changeovers with the blacks. Also, your print came from the Village East in NY, and I never received a print report, so I'm curious to hear how it held up after a couple weeks there.

Feel free to shoot me an email so we can connect:

Posted by Buck Wilson (Member # 5885) on 04-19-2016, 01:24 PM:

Watched this last night. Fantastic experience, great movie! So nice to see film on screen.

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 07-04-2016, 11:11 AM:

After 63 days in release (9 weeks) with 7 prints at it's widest release, the film has grossed in the U.S. $60,438

Posted by Max Hayman (Member # 8726) on 11-11-2016, 05:49 AM:

We are showing this at Union Films, Southampton University, UK on Wednesday 16th October.

The print arrived last week - still need to check through it however.

Posted by Fredrik Sandstrom (Member # 8171) on 11-16-2016, 02:47 AM:

quote: Max Hayman
We are showing this at Union Films, Southampton University, UK on Wednesday 16th October.

The print arrived last week - still need to check through it however.

Ah, glad to see it arrived safely; I shipped that print out to you after its little "tour" through Finland, that I arranged with help from Matt Miller and a number of venues here in the country. It was fun to be able to do this and the film was very well received.

The print was in excellent shape in our last screening, so you should have no problems with it. Have a good show tonight!