Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Spellbound (2002)

This is topic Spellbound (2002) 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=000951

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 06-06-2003, 01:41 AM:

Thinkfilm
ETS Depot

5 reels
flat/1.85 (video transfer - 1.33 in 1.85 area)
Dolby Stereo SR

no attached/enclosed trailers

this film has _very_ tight changeovers; dialogue continues across all but the R4->R5 reel change; if plattering or running large reels, don't leave any reference frames for these changeovers

there's a sync pop (quick beep) at the end of R5 just before the blue MPAA ratings band, which leaves the theatre with the choice of either not showing the ratings band or subjecting the audience to an annoying beep [Mad]

edit: framing is tight throughout the film; it appears that someone has forgotten about the concept of "safe title area"

[ 06-06-2003, 08:35 AM: Message edited by: Scott Norwood ]

Posted by Christopher Seo (Member # 7) on 06-21-2003, 01:08 AM:

What Scott said. I'm glad I'm running 6K reels. Some additional annoyances regarding the changeovers:

The lab cues are smaller than usual, which would be fine, except that most of the cue is outside the 1.33 area. So if you bring in your handy movable side masking for a nice Academy-looking picture, be prepared to watch very carefully for the cues.

Also, the length between cues is non-standard (at least on the reel I change over on, R-3). The motor cue is printed only 8 feet before the c/o cue (i.e., 7 feet 12 frames between cues, instead of the usual 10 feet 8 frames).

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 06-21-2003, 01:15 AM:

quote:
The motor cue is printed only 8 feet before the c/o cue (i.e., 7 feet 12 frames between cues, instead of the usual 10 feet 8 frames).

Just so people don't get confused, is it 8 feet (7 feet 16 frames) or 7 feet 9 inches (7 feet 12 frames)?

Basically I'm just pointing out that there may be 12 inches in a foot, but there's actually 18 frames in a foot (18 frames/ft = 24frames/sec / 90ft/min / 60 sec/min).

Posted by Christopher Seo (Member # 7) on 06-21-2003, 02:58 AM:

To clear up the confusion, the "before the c/o cue" statement included the 4 frames of motor cue, but not the 4 frames of c/o cue, in the 8-foot total. The "between cues" measurements exclude both sets of cues from the footage count... hence the 4-frame difference between "8 feet before the c/o cue" and "7 feet 12 frames between cues". I'm not sure which method of specifying the cue distance people prefer. (Actually after measuring the distance again I counted 7 feet 11 frames between cues, quite an odd number.)

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 06-21-2003, 05:03 AM:

this is getting o-t, but it's actually 16 frames/ft.

carl

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 06-21-2003, 11:12 PM:

Yes, it is 16... don't know how I managed to type 16 frames and then 18. I'll shut up now and sleep more instead. [Smile]

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 06-22-2003, 01:45 PM:

My notes indicate this film was 1.33-within-1.66, at least that's how I ran it (1.66 lenses & plates, masking set to 1.33). I don't doubt it would be kinda tight at 1.85. I mentioned to the distributor that this was an odd choice for the transfer since the folks who can show 1.66 can probably also show a full 1.37 Academy print. Perhaps they had another tranfer done for 1.85 height and that's what Scott ran?

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 06-22-2003, 04:42 PM:

Steve makes an interesting point. We can show all formats properly, but I didn't even consider the possibility that this might be 1.66, as it's an American film and a video transfer at that. When framed carefully, it works fine at 1.85 (with roughly a 1.66 box in the 1.85 frame), though I might try one show at 1.66 next week just for amusement value.

Posted by Christopher Seo (Member # 7) on 06-23-2003, 12:31 AM:

1.33-in-1.66? That is pretty odd, and rather silly, since I did not even come across any information to the effect that it was side-matted to a 1.33 shape, much less supposed to be run with 1.66 lenses/plates. Do the filmmakers/distributors really expect everyone to just figure these things out? There is some image beyond the 1.85 area on my print, although that would be consistent with the SMPTE standard for hard-matting (no greater than 1.66 allowed).

Steve,

Did you ask them why they put dialogue right up to the very beginning and end of the reels?