Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: 1.85:1 Hard Matte

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Film Handlers' Forum » 1.85:1 Hard Matte

Author

Topic: 1.85:1 Hard Matte

John Wilson
Film God

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

posted 04-07-2000 04:45 AM

Ran a sneak of a new Australian film called "Me, Myself, I" last week. It's flat with strict 1.85:1 hard matted frame lines throughout. That part is great, but why is it that the frame lines move from reel to reel? This is VERY annoying when your screen has a perfect 1.85 screen ratio, you walk out to check the other screens and come back in and Whammo! It's out of register again.

Why does this happen?

PS: Great movie, BTW. As someone else said, it's everything "Sliding Doors" should have been but wasn't.

------------------
"It's not the years honey, it's the mileage".
Indiana Jones.

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

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

posted 04-07-2000 07:00 AM

A slight shift of the vertical centerline from reel to reel usually indicates that bi-directional printers were used by the lab.

Continous contact printers position the original and print film using edge guiding (for horizontal position) and maintaining tension over the printing sprocket (for vertical position). The height of the perforation on the negative film (BH-1866 perforation) is 0.073 inches. The height of the perforation on the print stock is 0.078 inches (KS-1870 perforation). If all the reels are printed heads-to-tails (as is done in the few labs using continuous feed-on printers), the vertical position will be constant, as the leading edge of each perf is used for vertical positioning. But if bi-directional printers are used, the reels that are printed tails-to-heads will have a 0.078 - 0.073 = 0.005 inch offset, since the trailing edges of the perfs are now being used.

Standard SMPTE 195 specifies that the image height be at least 0.505 inches for prints with a hard matte. I suspect that your prints have a hard matte that has an image height too close to the 0.446 inch height of 1.85:1, so the image shift shows the framelines if the framing isn't perfect.

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Eastman Kodak Company
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com

| IP: Logged

Tim Reed
Better Projection Pays

Posts: 5246
From: Northampton, PA
Registered: Sep 1999

posted 04-07-2000 08:24 AM

I remember in the late 70s, we had problems with the hard mattes jumping around a lot from scene to scene. And in "Heaven Can Wait", I remember one spot where it actually shifted in the middle of a scene, like someone was moving a framer.

------------------
Better Projection Pays!

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

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

posted 04-07-2000 08:43 AM

Scent of a Woman was a particularly annoying example of that. Not only did the matting keep moving from one reel to the next, but that was back when all Universal prints were printed low in frame.

| IP: Logged

Ian Price
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1714
From: Denver, CO
Registered: Jun 99

posted 04-07-2000 02:10 PM

I really enjoyed Me, Myself & I when I saw it at last year's Telluride Film Festival. I tried to get it for my theatre, but Sony Classics gave it to another theatre sort of randomly. I even offered to market it especially well. They still gave it away!

| IP: Logged

Scott Norwood
Film God

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

posted 04-07-2000 06:36 PM

I just remembered this today--one of the first films I ran in 35mm was "Mrs. Dalloway," which was hard-matted to about 1.75:1. At the time, the theatre where I was working was set up such that "flat/widescreen" was 1.75 instead of 1.85 (long story...basically, this was done as part of an early CinemaScope conversion, before 1.85 was standardized as the American flat/widescreen format).

Anyway, many scenes in this film were shot simultaneously with both "A" and "B" cameras; as it happened, the mattes were done in-camera and were slightly different from each camera. The very slight but constant change in the top/bottom border from scene to scene and edit to edit drove me nuts, although I doubt that anyone in the audience noticed.

| IP: Logged

George Roher
Master Film Handler

Posts: 266
From: Washington DC
Registered: Jul 99

posted 04-07-2000 09:07 PM

"Celestial Clockwork" was a 1.85 hard matte and the frame jumped around a few times. What was worse was that the space between the frames was clear. At one point the subtitles would drop too low and at another point the white frame line would pop up and be visible. It had to be watched carefully and adjusted a couple times each show. When it first happened, I thought I had made an out of frame splice (but I hadn't).

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

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

posted 04-07-2000 11:21 PM

Clear framelines usually mean that the negative was printed on an optical printer, which is unusual.

| IP: Logged

John Wilson
Film God

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

posted 04-10-2000 06:23 AM

quote:
Originally posted by Ian Price:
I really enjoyed Me, Myself & I when I saw it at last year's Telluride Film Festival. I tried to get it for my theatre, but Sony Classics gave it to another theatre sort of randomly. I even offered to market it especially well. They still gave it away!

Yes, I was very impressed by it and can't wait for the season to begin. (Mainly so I can see the ending which I missed).

One funny thing about that night, the usher on the door was the guy who played the 'Bible Basher' at the street corner just before she is hit by the car (that she herself is driving!).

He got a few 'That guy looks familiar' looks as they all left.

I suggested he ask each of them 'are you truly happy?' as they left, but he wouldn't be in on it.

------------------
"It's not the years honey, it's the mileage".
Indiana Jones.

| IP: Logged

Michael Barry
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 584
From: Sydney, NSW, Australia
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 04-10-2000 09:38 AM

I just made up our print of this movie tonight...the print was as new as they come, and - yes! - no changeover cues, either! (Tail out/emulsion out, too, and no lab joins!!!)

I haven't seen any of it yet, but I'm looking forward to it.

| 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.