Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Mulholland Drive

This is topic Mulholland Drive 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=000304

Posted by Paul Konen (Member # 41) on 10-19-2001, 10:17 AM:

Reels: 8
Format: Flat
Sound: SR/SRD
Dist: Universal
Depot: Technicolor

Posted by Charles Everett (Member # 889) on 10-21-2001, 10:26 AM:

Attached trailer: Brotherhood of the Wolf.

BOOTH ALERT: The Universal logo is silent. Audio starts in the second (StudioCanal) logo.

Posted by Brad Haven (Member # 954) on 08-12-2002, 12:40 AM:

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 08-12-2002, 06:59 AM:

Interesting that they requested the Australian prints be framed slightly lower to give more headroom. Was there any similar request elsewhere?

Standard SMPTE 195 specifies that the centerline of the intended image area should be vertically centered between two perforations (Dimension J=K, nominally equal).

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: +1 585 477 5325 Cell: +1 585 781 4036 Fax: +1 585 722 7243
e-mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

Posted by Paul Konen (Member # 41) on 08-12-2002, 09:50 AM:

I remember getting a similar flyer in my print too.

Paul.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 08-12-2002, 10:26 AM:

It may be that the camera viewfinder reticles showing the image area were incorrect, or they later found a few scenes that had the tops of heads cropped.

Posted by Brad Haven (Member # 954) on 08-12-2002, 11:16 AM:

Hi guy's, the reason that i heard for the odd framing was that most of the footage was shot for tv, it wasn't untill later that they decided to reshoot new footage for a cinema release.

------------------
currently (relief)chief projectionist
at Luna Leederville cinemas
also cheerleader for john wilson (gooOO JOHN!)

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 08-12-2002, 11:43 AM:

Do you know if the original composition was for 4:3, 14:9, or 16:9 television aspect ratios?:
BBC Widescreen Television Guidelines

Posted by Brad Haven (Member # 954) on 08-12-2002, 12:14 PM:

I dont know , but having screened the film and seen it a few times it dont believe it was 4:3, i dont recall any scenes being too cramped. I cant recall if it was printed full frame or masked down either?.

Posted by John Hazelton (Member # 898) on 08-15-2002, 08:05 PM:

I suspect it was framed for 4x3, although it could easily have been 16x9 with a 4x3 safe area. I saw the pilot back when it was still only a pilot, and it looked just right on a standard 4x3 monitor.

I suspect the projection reframing was requested in order to avoid having to optically reprint certain shots that were composed for 4x3.