Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Pre-changeover cues

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Film Handlers' Forum » Pre-changeover cues (Page 1)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

Author

Topic: Pre-changeover cues

Carl Welles
Film Handler

Posts: 82
From: Cali
Registered: Jun 99

posted 02-18-2000 04:05 PM

Who is the supergenious at the labs who is putting a single changeover cue (one frame) at the start of all the trailers and advertisements? I mean really, assuming there actually is a theater that runs each trailer on it's own reel and not built up onto one, what good would that do anyway? The douser would be closed! For the rest of us who like to use the nice black that usually comes at the head and tail of previews, it looks like crap and is distracting.

If anyone can answer this question I would love to know.

| IP: Logged

Randy Stankey
Film God

Posts: 6539
From: Erie, Pennsylvania
Registered: Jun 99

posted 02-18-2000 05:05 PM

Y'know, Carl, I was going to ask the same thing. All of our Coca-Cola ads have that. (The Universal Studios "Are you ready..." ad)

We've got the same thing on our Cinemark policy trailers. (Now called "Image") I just told everybody that's where they have to put the outboard cue to lower the lights. It keeps people from cutting off the black at the beginning.

| IP: Logged

Erika Hellgren
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 168
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: Jun 99

posted 02-18-2000 10:28 PM

I've noticed those annoying cues at the beginning of New Line Cinema trailers, I think. I always cut them off. It's one of my pet peeves, right up there with sound cutting in after it's already started.

| IP: Logged

Scott Norwood
Film God

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

posted 02-18-2000 11:09 PM

Good question. I suspect that it's a lab reference of some sort. When I buy rolls of SMPTE leader from labs, those round cue marks are printed a few frames before the "splice here" frame (where the negative cutter splices the leader to the start of the feature/short/trailer).

I can't imagine why anyone would run each trailer on a separate reel...I've only done this sort of thing when there was only one trailer to be shown and when R1 of the feature was completely full (which is rare...usually you can splice at least one or two trailers onto the head of R1 of most features and still have it fit onto a 2000' house reel with room to spare).

And anyway, the cue marks should go at the tail of the trailer...

Personally, I'm against putting cue marks on trailers. When making up a trailer reel, the cues need only go on the very last trailer on the reel, which can easily be done by the projectionist. There's no need to have distracting cues at the end of every single trailer.

| IP: Logged

John Wilson
Film God

Posts: 5438
From: Sydney, Australia.
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 02-23-2000 05:31 PM

I made up our feature print of "Talented Mr Ripley" yesterday and it has no cues on it at all. About time, I say.

| IP: Logged

Scott Norwood
Film God

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

posted 02-23-2000 06:34 PM

About time!?!?

Cue marks are _very_ important on features; unlike trailers, prints of features will play in many theatres and thus standardization is important. The chances of "Joe Projectionist" getting the cue marks in the wrong place are a lot higher than the chances of a film lab doing it wrong. Besides, lab cues look "neater" and are less noticeable on screen than hand-scratched cues.

| IP: Logged

John Wilson
Film God

Posts: 5438
From: Sydney, Australia.
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 02-23-2000 07:37 PM

Hi Scott

I thought you might respond to that. I'm just saying that the amount of theaters here that don't run off platters are almost zip. Those that still do run on 6k's but you've got to go a fair way to find one.

To put it simply, platters are the norm now and I think it's a good move to start leaving off cues. Why should 99% of the filmgoing public have to look at these things just so when "Ripley" (for example) gets to the little show out west in 3 months time they can do a changeover? Chances are that the print after that run will get junked anyway, so let him put his own cues on. He may even be quite good at putting them on.

I grew up with changeovers too (and loved doing them) but times have changed and I'm just saying I'm glad the labs and filmmakers are changing also.

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

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

posted 02-23-2000 08:21 PM

I'd love to see the elimination of cues personally. For some reason, the last shot on each reel always has someone's head positioned in the upper right hand corner and WHAM, whew that's distracting.

The only positive thing I can see for them is
#1 For the changeover houses, as Scott is right, theater scratched cues are damn annoying, and
#2 To help keep track of the reel numbers during a screening (useful for those late Thursday night calls to Technicolor).

Still though, we would all be better "as a whole" (not for changeover houses of course) to eliminate them.

| IP: Logged

George Roher
Master Film Handler

Posts: 266
From: Washington DC
Registered: Jul 99

posted 02-24-2000 12:02 AM

Rear Window (at least the print I've handled) has two sets of cues. There's a green cue right at the very top of the frame and a black cue under it. I was told that the lab thought the print was scope and cued it for scope by mistake, then I guess they added the black cues to cover themselves. I don't understand how a lab professional could think it was anamorphic!

| IP: Logged

Scott Norwood
Film God

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

posted 02-24-2000 07:40 AM

Brad - here's #3 - a way to tell heads from tails when a reel begins or ends with an upside-down shot (such as R3 tail of "Rushmore" and others).

If I thought that the distributors (grumble...Technicolor...grumble) wouldn't screw it up, I wouldn't be opposed to having multiple-inventory prints, with one set of prints without cue marks (which would _never_ be booked in changeover houses) and one set with cue marks (which could be booked in any theatre); unfortunately, I don't think that this is a realistic option. Given that double-inventory won't happen, I think that the current system is probably best. Certainly the number of manual booths isn't really "decreasing," since by now everyone who wanted automation has probably already installed it.

A possible compromise might be to print cue marks on every third reel (R3, R6, etc.), but that would cause problems with theatres that use 4000' reels (rare) or theatres that normally use 6000s but use 2000s for once-only shows.

| IP: Logged

Bruce McGee
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1776
From: Asheville, NC USA... Nowhere in Particular.
Registered: Aug 1999

posted 02-24-2000 07:41 AM

The green cue is the original. The new one is probably in the right place on the screen to be seen with the new smaller screen ratios, right?

My 1967 GWTW print has double cues like that. The black ones are in the right place for the cropped image. Still dont like it....

Dont get rid of cues. Somebody out there is going to run it reel-to-reel somewhere, someday, and will need them. X's scratched on the print look like shit.

| IP: Logged

John Walsh
Film God

Posts: 2490
From: Connecticut, USA, Earth, Milky Way
Registered: Oct 1999

posted 02-24-2000 08:57 AM

I feel we should keep cue marks. I know they can be annoying, but all-in-all, I think they are better to have.

Most people (who are not use to projection) don't notice them.

Also, I have used c/o's for other things. I've had to break down prints where there were two or three splices near the c/o point. (From people who screw up when making up or breaking down.) If there was no c/o mark, and there's no picture frame left on the heads or tails, you couldn't be sure of where the actual c/o was.

A minor point, (and shows should be made up correctly, anyway) but the "OQ" (Operator Quality) index is a little low these days.

| IP: Logged

Erika Hellgren
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 168
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: Jun 99

posted 02-24-2000 05:00 PM

John, you bring up an interesting point. I don't know how many times the changeover cues have helped me in determining exactly where to cut when there's a fade out at the end of the reel.
I really don't think too many people notice those things. Just like nobody seems to notice all the gross digital artifacts on DVD's. I hate DVD's!

| IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 02-24-2000 05:47 PM

It is kinda obvious as to my position on the whole c/o cue mark thingy. They should be left alone and definately stay. I don't trust the bulk of the people out there to hand scribe their own cues and have them look good. As to the "pre-cue"...beats the heck out of me...you can kill that one if you like.

Mr. Norwood, 70mm projection magazines are specified for use with 22" reels and as such are not "rare" in the reel-to-reel world and hold 2 35mm reels comfortably. The Uptown in DC runs with this size reel.

The fact that the bulk of the industry uses platters (a big mistake in my opinion) is no justification for the elimination of the cues. As others have pointed out, they can be useful for finding reels joins.

Prints should stay with the 2000' shipping reel and keep the cue marks till the end of distribution on film.

Steve

------------------
"Old projectionists never die, they just changeover!"

| IP: Logged

John Wilson
Film God

Posts: 5438
From: Sydney, Australia.
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 02-24-2000 06:31 PM

But why do the patrons need to see cues? It has been said that they are handy to mark the ends of reels. OK, that's true but can't the prints be marked in some other way to identify this, somewhere out of the image area?

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

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.