Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Requesting print info for Lucky Break

This is topic Requesting print info for Lucky Break 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=000309

Posted by Michael Brown (Member # 890) on 10-25-2001, 09:10 AM:

cheers,
its a british film,I know its scope.

Posted by Bernard Tonks (Member # 809) on 10-25-2001, 12:26 PM:

“LUCKY BREAK”

Film Four Distributors
2.39:1 Scope.
SR & SRD only.
No trailer attachments.
5 reels.

Audience tend to leave on cast list, which spoils the ending of the film IMHO as pictures do appear again important to the storyline. Bad judgement by the director! I would put a notice out advising your patrons. Rehearse for sound as there is soft dialogue in places.

Posted by Evans A Criswell (Member # 381) on 05-31-2002, 09:47 AM:

Is this the same "Lucky Break" that is now opening in my area 2002/05/31?

Film Journal International lists the following [quoting for comparison only]:

Paramount
107 minutes
1.85:1
Dolby Digital
A Paramount Pictures, Miramax Films and FilmFour production

The aspect ratio and number of reels conflict the information posted earlier in this thread. (5 reels can be a max of 100 minutes, right?)

Is the version being released in the U.S. different than the one released in England? Please check the U.S. version and see if the print information is the same. I trust film-tech more than I trust other sources, but since there is a conflict here, I'd like to hear a film-tech member in the U.S. verify it one way or the other.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-31-2002, 10:08 AM:

Just F.Y.I., with polyester film stock being thinner, you can fit 2600 feet of film quite happily onto a 2000 foot reel. 2700 feet gets awful close and 2800 is level with the edge, which is not recommended. Still, a movie running 2 hours *could* be put on 5 reels if the changes were carefully selected.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-31-2002, 10:56 AM:

35mm triacetate print film had a nominal base thickness of 0.0056 inches (142 microns). Kodak VISION Color Print Film (ESTAR) base has a nominal thickness of 0.0047 inches (119 microns). Print film emulsion thickness is about 0.0006 inches (15 microns).

The roll diameter can be calculated from the following equation:

D = Squareroot [ ( (48 x L x t) / Pi) + (C x C) ]

Where:
D is roll diameter in inches
L is length of film roll in feet
t is film thickness in inches (about 0.0053 for Kodak VISION Color Print film)
C is core/hub diameter in inches

So for a shipping reel with a 4-inch core, and a film thickness of 0.0053 inches, 2000 feet of film will have the following diameter:

D = Squareroot [ ( (48 x 2000 x 0.0053) / Pi) + (4 x 4) ]

= 13.3 inches

2600 feet of film will (over)fill the same shipping reel to 15.1 inches diameter.

As Brad notes, it should just be possible to fit a two hour movie (10,800 feet plus leaders) on five shipping reels, although six reels would be more typical.

------------------
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 Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-31-2002, 12:09 PM:

Moving this discussion into the Film Handler's Forum titled "Maximum feet of film that will fit on a shipping reel." Please continue this part of the discussion over there.

If you have info on the movie "Lucky Break", please reply to this thread.

Posted by Mark McLeod (Member # 1056) on 05-31-2002, 07:14 PM:

Although I'm no longer employed by a theater. I did have a chance to attend a very early preview screening of this back in April.

I didn't physically handle the print but the film being released in North America is the same Lucky Break as the UK one. Evan's information is correct except the film is indeed Scope. I believe the print I saw must have contained a note or something to play it Flat but as the film started they opened the masking up to Scope. The theater that had the screening is notorious for film done wrong.

It's a decent little film and I'm surprised it never opened wide. It's from the director of the Full Monty.

I hope this helps and am sorry if I shouldn't have posted here.

Mark McLeod
Movie Reviewer - MadmanMark.com

Posted by Michael Brown (Member # 890) on 05-31-2002, 07:19 PM:

Yes It's scope