Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Fuji mystery

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Film Handlers' Forum » Fuji mystery

Author

Topic: Fuji mystery

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 08-14-1999 03:48 PM

Something that I have noticed over the last few weeks is that all bad reels that have come to my theatre that we have had to replace have been on Fuji stock. I don't know if this is some sort of bizzare coincidence or what. I also don't know what film stock would have to do with printing errors. But I thought that I should mention it.

I had to replace reel #2 on Austin Powers 2 (Fuji) do to a lab error throughout the entire thing.

There is an entire post on the Thomas Crown Affair (Fuji) and the bad reels with that movie. Brad got a good print and it is definitely Kodak according to him.

I have heard of several instances of Detroit Rock City (Fuji) having a few bad reels. One of the reels on my print had little marks on the edge for about a minute that looked as if somebody put them there with a sharpie marker. It doesn't last for the entire reel, and it is definitely not worth replacing since the movie is bombing so bad (4 people per show).

This is not to say that Kodak prints do not have errors. I just find it odd that all of my prints recently have been Fuji, and am wondering how in the world that has an effect, or if it even does? I really like Fuji!

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99

posted 08-14-1999 10:59 PM

I'd chalk it up to coincidence. I haven't found a pattern of bad reels to a particular stock of film...but I think all of the R2s for Detroit Rock City have that "Sharpie mark" on the left edge (visible only in full 2.39 aspect ratio). As to the Austin Powers 2 print, I had a bad R5 and other theaters around town had random bad reels. I think it's all just sloppy lab work.

I have heard that the Vision Premiere is able to withstand more intense heat from the lamphouse than Vision stock from theaters that had Phantom Menace on 2 screens with a print of each. I ran two Premiere prints on my giant screens and a regular Vision print on a third, smaller house and the embossing was only noticeable on the regular print with the smaller lamp. Perhaps Mr. Pytlak has more info on that one.

| IP: Logged

Scott Norwood
Film God

Posts: 8146
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99

posted 08-15-1999 06:52 AM

What labs made these prints? Were any of them "color by Deluxe" (the lab we all love to hate)? The films mentioned were all wide releases, so it's reasonable to expect that they would be printed at high speed and quite prone to defects.

What type of quality control do labs have? Obviously, they're not going to pay someone to watch every reel of every print and approve or reject it, but I would hope that they would sample, say, one reel out of every batch or so. I doubt that it happens that way in real life, though. I've made a couple of 16mm shorts, and my experience with Technicolor NYC is that they expect the customer to inspect the print and report any defects, rather than checking it themselves, first.

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000

posted 08-16-1999 12:11 PM

Kodak Vision Premier Print Film (2393) has a slightly thicker emulsion than Kodak Vision Print Film (2383). Because of the slightly thicker emulsion, 2393 has a bit more curl at low humidity, which may affect focus position. Both films should be equally resistant to damage from excessive radiant energy, although "hot spotting" with a large lamp and inadequate heat filtration can still cause permanent damage.

------------------
John Pytlak

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000

posted 08-16-1999 12:38 PM

Just a few questions about the "Sharpie Mark" on the left hand image edge of Reel 2 of "Detroit Dark City": How frequently does the mark repeat? Is it exactly once per foot (every 16 frames)? What color is the mark? Is it always the same place on the frame? Is it on all the scenes in that reel?

One possible explanation is that some dirt from the raw stock got caught on the 64-tooth contact printing sprocket, such that it was imaged every 16 frames. Or the raw stock could have been prone to static or pressure marks, which would have a repeat frequency equal to the circumference of the roller causing them.

------------------
John Pytlak

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99

posted 08-16-1999 01:37 PM

I've been around town and looked at a few of these DRC prints (R2). The line doesn't even show up on most screens due to a compromise aspect ratio. However, for full 2.39 houses, there it is in all it's glory!

I don't think it is a repeating 16 frame mark. It seems too random...but will inspect closely this evening and post here on it.

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 08-16-1999 04:38 PM

The "sharpie mark" on reel 2 of my print repeats randomly on the top left of the screen. It is black. Definitely slower than every 16 frames. Maybe once every 2 seconds or so.

| IP: Logged

Paul Konen
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 981
From: Frisco, TX. (North of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99

posted 08-16-1999 04:43 PM

It is almost like there is an analog track over there.

-------------------
Paul Konen
Usher B
Cinemark Theatres

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000

posted 08-17-1999 09:28 AM

Joe --- "Once every 2 seconds or so" could be related to the film manufacturer's edge print. Does the mark align with the manufacturer's edgeprint along the edge of the print?

------------------
John Pytlak

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

Printer-friendly view of this topic

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.