This is topic Ghostbusters (70 mm Prints) in forum Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets 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=3;t=000110
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 09-07-2000, 10:09 AM:
Brad Miller
Administrator
Posts: 1734
From: Denver, Colorado, USA
Registered: May 99
posted 09-05-2000 12:41 PM
Ghostbusters looks like an 8mm blow up.
Posted by System Notices (Member # 2357) on 09-05-2004, 12:44 PM:
It has been 1459 days since the last post.
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 09-05-2004, 12:44 PM:
the print that we had looks fine; maybe a bit grainy, but definitely better than a 35mm print
6 reels
Dolby format 42 (mono surround)
Columbia Pictures
ETS depot
Metrocolor lab.; Eastman LPP print stock
print #5001 from the ETS Cincinnati depot is in generally good shape; some heads and tails are missing a few frames, but it is not scratched or splicy and the track is good; it is an original 1984 LPP print and is starting to smell of vinegar ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Better book it while you still can!
Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 09-06-2004, 06:20 PM:
Scott and I had some debate about the sound on this (it ran at the 62nd World Science Fiction Convention in Boston -- Noreascon4). As far as I can tell, it was merely center-channel only (consistent with the labelling on the cans of "MONO").
Given the low numbers of these prints, I suspect reels may shuffle in the future, etc. Copy numbers (emulsion-scratched on leaders):
R1 #25
R2 ??
R3 #23
R4 #21 MR. SIZZLE (?)
R5 #24
R6 DICK STEELE 2
--jhawk
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 09-07-2004, 08:29 AM:
well, there was definitely music in the surround channel during the main title, although, admittedly, we didn't have the greatest sound setup (or room acoustics)
Posted by Aaron Sisemore (Member # 145) on 09-07-2004, 11:06 AM:
JHawk, are you talking about a 35mm or 70mm print? I believe Scott is referring to the 70mm prints, as it makes ZERO sense to have ever wasted time and money striking a MONO-sounded 70mm print of any title.
-Aaron
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 09-07-2004, 04:43 PM:
Jhawk, agreed that is beyond moronic. ALL of those Ghostbusters prints were struck at the same time, and they ARE format 42. Plus you are talking about a 1984 film! And you are talking about 70mm! Do you REALLY believe that a major movie from 1984 on a 6 track 70mm mag print would be mono??? I am stunned.
There is only one guarantee in life, and that is that the shipping cans on repertory titles can never be trusted to carry correct data.
BTW, I handled an SRD print of Blue Hawaii earlier this year. It was an original 1961 IB Tech print...BUT THE CANS SAID IT WAS DOLBY DIGITAL, SO IT MUST HAVE BEEN!!!!!! ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
The rules are quite clear in here. If you haven't personally handled the film and know FOR A FACT, do not post in this forum! So did you personally handle that print, or did you just hang out, read the labels on the cans and annoy the projectionists trying to run the show?
One last thing, those "copy numbers" are LAB numbers, not print numbers. Next time you get a print in from a depot, take a look at the LAB numbers on the leaders. My oh my, none of them match the actual print numbers that are on the cans! So yeah, those mean absolutely nothing. It is for lab tracking purposes only.
Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 09-10-2004, 09:49 AM:
Scott and I both personally handled and projected the 70mm print in question of Ghostbusters. I am telling you that not only were the cans labelled mono, but there appeared to only be signal in the center channel at all the times that I checked, which I did extensively. Scott seems to have reached a differnet conclusion, hence "some debate." I am well aware that labels on cans are not to be trusted.
The situation was complicated by the cobbled-together nature of the setup which resulted in quite a lot of hum/noise on many of the channels, as well as lack of booth monitors, making it very difficult to tell for certain. There was not a lot of time for checking and extra runs of the print to be sure. Because of the hum and the lack of non-C signal, we ran with the other channels run down to reduce the noise present to the audience.
Yes, Brad, I personally handled the print, and I personally did the gloved inspection on the entire print.
I am well aware that the copy numbers are not print numbers. There is utility in knowing if the print #5001 we saw in September of 2004 is the same as the print #5001 someone else sees some time down the line. It is a small thing.
--jhawk
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 09-10-2004, 11:19 AM:
#5001 is a TES appointed print number and isn't even the original numbering scheme. Also, reels with magnetic tracks on them should never be mixed and matched. Let's say when you were running this print the projector was not fully degaussed and some slight erasure of the soundtrack happened. If they sent a couple of reels from the print you ran and mixed it with another print, the next theater would be pulling their hair out as the sound changed from one reel to the next. Not saying it can't happen, but there is no reason for it to.
And yes Scott is right, you are wrong. The print is format 42. There are plenty of analog surround systems that are not set up properly, but just because somebody at some theater doesn't hear the surround effects when running Titanic in 35mm doesn't mean that it isn't still SR with normal surround activity. I am surprised that even with this comment...
there