Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Schindler's List (1993)

This is topic Schindler's List (1993) 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=002128

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 07-22-2006, 04:17 PM:

"Schindler's List" (1993)
10 reels (ten reels)
1.85:1 Flat [*]
DTS Stereo / DTS (no SRD, no SDDS)
(Presumably "DTS Stereo" is Dolby SR compatible; see below)
Early prints on a tape-spliced combination of black-and-white and color acetate stocks.
Later release prints were on color stock throughout.
Conventional redeveloped silver analog soundtrack
Deluxe Lab
Universal Studios
Amblin Entertainment (Steven Spielberg)

There are 18 seconds of music following the last credit (Amblin
Entertainment), followed by 3 seconds of silence, followed by the
rating. Please don't cut off the music.

Nice tasteful black DTS discs:

[*] Our print is stickered with studio/lab inspection labels (NBC Universal/Mike Feinberg) that label the print 1.33:1, and the cans are also so-labeled.

=== Print-specific info
Universal studio print #756 (Bel Air -type markings)
Kodak Color Vision 2383 ESTAR-base stock only (no BW stock).
Print quality excellent; struck 9-8-2005 on 2005-datecode stock. Some slight color variation is noticable across reel changeovers.
Lab changeover cues.

=== A/R Commentary
Because of the above aspect-ratio markings, I asked in the FHF about this. See the thread, Schindler's List Aspect Ratio.

quote: Bill Gabel provided authorative information from the LA release:
posted 07-21-2006 06:25 PM CT (US)

When I opened it in Los Angeles First Run, we played it 1.85. All my prints were E.K. Showprints and the TAP sheet had it Flat 1.85.

quote: Brad Miller also noted:
posted 07-21-2006 08:01 PM CT (US)

Bill is correct. I played 2 EK showprints and a regular release print and all 3 were 1.85

It is certainly safe for 1.66:1 projection.

=== Film stock commentary
There has been some discussion of the issues associated with mixing of color and black-and-white stock in the original release of Schindler's List in other threads. Many theatres had problems with focus under high-wattage lamps because black-and-white stock absorbs more heat than color dyes. There were also shedding issues.

Summary:

Schinler's [sic] List Red Girl Scene (2002) has an extensive discussion of the issues.
'Bobby Jones' shedding problem? (2004) John Pytlak and others discuss shedding problems seen on the original prints, and issues associated with inadequate lab edgewaxing of black-and-white stock at the time.
Return Of The King. Running Time? (2003) John notes the early prints were on acetate base.

===See the DTS Stereo thread for a discussion of "DTS Stereo." Most likely it is SR-compatible (we played it in DTS and did not evaluate).

Search terms: schindlers list, shinler's list, schinlers list

[Edit: added image of DTS disc]

[ 07-24-2006, 12:53 PM: Message edited by: John Hawkinson ]

Posted by System Notices (Member # 2357) on 01-11-2008, 10:54 AM:

It has been 537 days since the last post.

Posted by Amanda Mundin (Member # 3386) on 01-11-2008, 10:54 AM:

Has anyone run Schindler's List with an intermission and does anyone remember where the intermission is? I assume it will be at the end of one of the reels?

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 01-11-2008, 12:34 PM:

When I saw a print of this film there was a letter from the producers in one of the cans requesting that, if at all possible, it should be run without an intermission. Unfortunately, in this case it wasn't possible, as the cinema had only a single 35mm projector with a tower and it wasn't possible to fit the whole film on a tower spool. It was about three hours fifteen minutes. I can't remember if there was an intermission caption on one of the reels for use in this situation. This was one of the original triacetate prints; black and white print stock was Agfa, from Kodak neg. I'm not sure about the colour sections. The black and white looked very good.

Posted by System Notices (Member # 2357) on 09-03-2009, 08:03 PM:

It has been 601 days since the last post.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 09-03-2009, 08:03 PM:

"DTS Stereo" should be played with A-Type NR, not SR.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 09-03-2009, 11:15 PM:

quote: Manny Knowles
"DTS Stereo" should be played with A-Type NR, not SR.

The linked discussion above shows a DTS representative saying otherwise (namely saying that DTS Stereo can be either A-Type or SR and that most of the time it is the latter).

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 09-03-2009, 11:27 PM:

"DTS Stereo" just means a digital stereo disc instead of a 5.1 channel disc for DTS Stereo players.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 09-04-2009, 09:10 AM:

Joe you are going back TOO far in history. The "stereo" discs were only made for the first few titles and all of those machines were later upgraded to "6 track". They are referring to the analog tracks.

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 09-04-2009, 09:35 AM:

As I recall, the first DTS releases (1993) featured Dolby A on the optical soundtrack. Eventually, the "back-up" optical track was just called "DTS Stereo." So, if you played Apollo 13 back in 1995 your only option for digital sound was DTS and your only option for optical sound was a Dolby-compatible, surround-encoded "DTS Stereo" soundtrack. Then someone finally figured out that studios shouldn't have exclusive deals to support just one digital sound format.

Brad is correct that the first few DTS releases had a 2-channel, surround encoded digital soundtrack option so that more theatres could afford to "upgrade" to digital and simply process the sound through their existing "4-track surround" systems. I saw Jurrasic Park this way at a theatre which, just one year earlier, was still showing things like Far and Away in 70mm... but they never showed anything in 70mm again (and the building is now a health club). [thumbsdown]

[/off topic]

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 09-11-2009, 02:00 AM:

I don't care WHO said it. I can't agree with the idea that "it could be A or SR." That's like saying "it could be flat or it could be scope." Sorry, but no. It's either one format or the other. Sure, you could playback via an SR decoder (or mono!) and you'd get sound in the theatre but it ain't necessarily gonna be right.

(I wonder what Dolby would have to say about that.)

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 09-11-2009, 07:00 AM:

No chit-chat.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 09-11-2009, 10:37 AM:

Ugh!

Posted by System Notices (Member # 2357) on 10-25-2017, 05:13 PM:

It has been 2966 days since the last post.