Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: 70mm "Ryan's Daughter" Screening in LA

This is topic 70mm "Ryan's Daughter" Screening in LA in forum Film-Yak 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=8;t=001451

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 11-14-2002, 10:44 AM:

Bill Hogan posted the following notice on the Telecine Internet Group (TIG):
_____________________________________________________________________

Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 01:53:49 -0800
From: Bill Hogan <billhogan1@earthlink.net>
To: TIG <tig@tig.alegria.com>
Subject: [Tig] Ryan's Daughter Sceening In Los Angeles

To all:

For those in the Los Angeles area if you don't have other plans for this Friday
evening I can recommend the following:

Ryan's Daughter at the Motion Picture Academy. 8 pm and only $5.00

This is a Brand New 70 mm Answer Print directly off the original 65 mm
negative. It doesn't get any better than this. The folks from Warner Bros say
that it is really great.

Cinematography Oscar for Freddie Young. Full details at: here

Of course everyone is welcome. There should be plenty of tickets left. There
is free parking in nearby lots. Call the Academy for Parking Lot locations. I
cannot find the info on the web site.

AMPAS details here: here

Regards, Bill Hogan
____________________________________________________________________

------------------
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: here Kodak Website

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 11-14-2002, 01:54 PM:

John,

Don't you remember this screening already being mentioned in this forum? I initiated a thread on 11/4.... You even contributed a couple postings!

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 11-14-2002, 02:06 PM:

Here's the link to your posting:
here

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 11-14-2002, 03:10 PM:

Again, a release print contacted straight from the cut camera negative. Does the studio not realise the risk they are taking every time they do this?

OK, at the no-budget regional film archive level which I operate on, we have to telecine originals and, in some circumstances, allow them to be viewed on a Steenbeck. But for major feature films costing millions of dollars, you'd have thought that the first thing that would be done with a 'legacy' original element would be to make a new fine grain dupe and use that for everything else.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 11-14-2002, 03:24 PM:

Leo: I can only hope and assume that if they are taking the time and expense to make a new print, they are fine-tuning the scene-to-scene timing as they would with an "answer print", and then immediately making a new timed full-length 65mm wet gate protection IP on 2242. If Warner Bros. indeed now owns this MGM picture, Richard May has been pretty good in caring about the long-term preservation of their film library. From Bill Hogan's comment "The folks from Warner Bros. say that it is really great", it sounds like this is the case.

For those unfamiliar with the production process, here are some links to information on the Kodak website:
http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/support/h1/servicesP.shtml Flow Diagram of Film Production

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/h1/printing.shtml Printing

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/h1/printingP.shtml#operations Printing Operations

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/digital/mastering.shtml Digital Film Mastering

http://www.cinesite.com/la/presrest/index.html Preservation and Restoration

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products/lab/5242.shtml KODAK VISION Color Intermediate Film 2242

Good lab practice would dictate finalizing the color timing with an answer print BEFORE making the IP. Then the protecion IP should be "proofed" by making a duplicate negative and check print before it is put into long-term storage.

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 11-17-2002, 01:26 AM:

Did anyone go to see this?

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 11-17-2002, 01:38 AM:

quote:
Did anyone go to see this?

Yes, I attended the screening.

I'm going to have to give up watching any new movies or DVDs for a couple weeks after seeing how SPECTACULAR this new print of Ryan's Daughter looked!

I must admit, however, this was the first David Lean film I've seen that I didn't think was very good. But I'm glad I went, nonetheless.

Posted by Dick Vaughan (Member # 540) on 11-17-2002, 07:48 AM:

Apparently this print was run with 6 track sepmag sound.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-17-2002, 08:53 AM:

quote:
"Again, a release print contacted straight from the cut camera negative. Does the studio not realise the risk they are taking every time they do this?"

And the worst part is, I'll bet it will start showing wear not too far down the road. A slight misthread in a projector and an entire reel could be ruined. Even worse is if something had've happened during the printing. Foolish. They definitely should have used that pass through the printer to make a new low grain copy.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 11-17-2002, 09:59 AM:

Will it be striped and sounded later for use in theatres that don't have dubbers? Why didn't they use DTS?

Posted by Dick Vaughan (Member # 540) on 11-17-2002, 10:26 AM:

The word is this answer print was struck prior to making protection IPs .

We of course asked if the print was going to be available for us to screen next march at our Widescreen Weekend but this is highly unlikely especially with the sepmag track.

One can only hope if they are making protection IPs they will carry on to produce new release prints.

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 11-17-2002, 11:24 AM:

I believe if you're retiming to compensate for fading before printing a new IP you pretty much have to check it by printing; probably several times. Call it a final answer print and you won't feel so bad.

Dick: Is the reluctance on their end? I'm sure running an interlocked mag track is no big deal for you. I ran an unmarried last week with the print arriving at the start of a 1 short + 5 features-in-a-row day which meant absolutely no time for any sort of even a partial test. And squeezing in the dubber alignment while inspecting/running the prior films (the unmarried was feature #3). But it all ran fine, and from the standpoint of the viewers, just another film, which is just as it should be, although if I may say so myself: Damn, it looked sharp--true anamorphic, straight off the EK, Blue Star lenses--one could imagine watching 70mm.