|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
Author
|
Topic: How To Make a Grown Cinematographer Cry :(
|
John Pytlak
Film God
![](http://www.film-tech.com/ubbmembers/331cap.gif)
Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000
|
posted 05-02-2000 06:25 AM
Recently, a dozen influential cinematographers visited Kodak in Rochester to discuss the future of the motion picture industry and Kodak's continuing efforts to improve film and presentation quality.During the discussions, they were asked how theatrical presentation of their movies could be improved. The five problems they cited most frequently were: 1. Theatres that severely crop the normal aspect ratios for "scope" (2.39:1) and "flat" (1.85:1), destroying their compositions. They specifically cited those theatre circuits that have a policy of showing both scope and flat with a common "one size fits all" aspect ratio (e.g., 2.00:1). 2. Theatres that show scope and flat at a common image width, so that the 2.39:1 scope image is actually smaller than 1.85:1 flat, with a "letterbox" appearance. 3. Misframed images, such that negative splices are seen in 2.39:1 scope, and compositions are ruined in 1.85:1 flat. 4. Poor attention to good focus, with pictures being shown out of focus until someone complains. 5. Dim pictures. Too many theatres are significantly below the SMPTE standard screen luminance of 16 footlamberts (55 candelas per square metre). ------------------ 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
|
|
Pat Moore
Master Film Handler
![](http://www.film-tech.com/ubbmembers/380.jpg)
Posts: 363
Registered: Mar 2000
|
posted 05-02-2000 06:40 AM
John; To a great extent, these comments are right on. One surprise to me is that unsteady and/or damaged (scratched, etc.) images are not on the top five list. Cropped images are a sad state of affairs, especially when it's so easy to avoid with a little planning. Especially sad are cinemas that go with a fixed 2:1 screen ratio, and there are a couple of majors proclaiming great quality that do just that in too many theatres. The industry does seem to be moving away from common width screens, at least a little bit, but that's been one of the compromises coming from Stadium seating and increased room heights. I imagine folks on the production end consider the Flat image to get the larger picture in these theatres, even though image quality suffers so much due to the increased magnification. Light levels have been a problem a few years ago, It seems like the exhibitors are doing a better job of properly lighting a screen with proper equipment specification from the start. After that it comes down to maintenance and operators to maintain quality. Be a lot easier without that common side picture though, wouldn't it? That said, it's nice to see a few concerned exhibitors taking care to show the whole picture and use side masking, the way it really should be done. Any mention about print quality out of Hollywood? Thanks, John.Pat
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Pytlak
Film God
![](http://www.film-tech.com/ubbmembers/331cap.gif)
Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000
|
posted 05-02-2000 07:07 AM
Pat:Unsteadiness was mentioned, but they considered it more of a lab issue than a theatre issue, as it was limited to a few specific productions. They seemed to feel that the physical quality and durability of the prints have improved in the last few years, although I'll bet that most of them don't often go to second-run houses. ------------------ 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
|
|
|
John Pytlak
Film God
![](http://www.film-tech.com/ubbmembers/331cap.gif)
Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000
|
posted 05-02-2000 08:41 AM
Bryan:Beg, borrow or steal (or better yet, buy!) some SMPTE 35-PA (RP40) test film to precisely check the size and placement of your projected image. Standard SMPTE 195 specifies the projected image size of "scope" to be 0.825 X 0.690 inches. For 1.85:1 "flat", the projected image size should be 0.825 X 0.446 inches. (For the more enlightened rest of the world, "scope" is 20.96 X 17.53 millimetres, and 1.85:1 is 20.96 X 11.33 millimetres). SMPTE Standards and test films can be purchased from the SMPTE at: http://www.smpte.org ------------------ 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
|
|
John Walsh
Film God
![](http://www.film-tech.com/ubbmembers/168.jpg)
Posts: 2490
From: Connecticut, USA, Earth, Milky Way
Registered: Oct 1999
|
posted 05-02-2000 08:52 AM
FWIW, my own comments:Item 1 (Cropping): I find that many service techs don't know how to figure out the correct lens size and order a lens two or three sizes too short to make sure; or they have to order the lenses early in the construction, and the finished screen size is smaller then orginally planned. Personally, I think many techs don't know how. Some use those "slide-rule" type calculators. I find them to be too far off. I've never seen a paper on figuring out exact lens sizes in trade publications. I wrote one, but the tech we were using at the time looked at it and said it was too much work. Our new tech wrote a Lotus program based on it, so no problems any more. Also, depending on the theater, (throw/screen size) it might be price. While the price (using Schneider sugg.list) for a 28mm vs. a 30mm lens is the same, there is a $260 difference for 26mm/28mm (and a $300 difference for 24mm/26mm.) Someone might be tempted to save a few bucks, especially if you're buying for an 18-plex. Showing all formats at 2:1 is cheapness, plain and simple. I don't know how to fight that. Item 2 (Common width): I have mixed feelings about this. While one person might say; "Scope is smaller than flat: Bad." I would say, "The biggest image possible without cropping is shown." The screen size has been limited somehow. What sense is there in making flat smaller? We know about light loss when shooting out of the lower part of the lens, but people are more likley to complain aboue screen size that brightness. A correct-sized lamp can help mitigate this. Item 3 (Framing): How about applying VistaVision-type "F"s in addition to or in place of c/o marks? Also, distributors are poor in marking what format a print is (1.75, 1.66, etc.) although, I admit most are 1.85 or 2.39. Item 4 (Focus): Lack of manpower at theaters (which is close to cheapness, but not always.) Is it possible to make an auto-focusing device at a practical cost? I guess not, because theaters don't even want to pay for remote focus, let alone the "smarts" for auto-focus. Item 5 (Dim Light): I think this is like #1 above: Lack of knowledge and cheapness. Don't know how to fight that. Theaters that are too cheap should be denied product, but I have no idea how that could be legally done. While I feel e-projectors are a lot farther off than most people think, they will be here before these problems are solved!
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
John Pytlak
Film God
![](http://www.film-tech.com/ubbmembers/331cap.gif)
Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000
|
posted 05-02-2000 09:09 AM
Bryan:The SMPTE 35-PA (RP40) test film is the best way to measure the projected image dimensions. Although the physical dimensions of the aperture plate are important, they don't tell you about image position, and don't take the screen masking into account (normally, the projected image is slightly oversized, so the masking forms the edge of the image as defined by the SMPTE 35-PA test film). Don't change aperture, masking or lens without using SMPTE 35-PA to check the dimensions on the screen. ------------------ 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
|
|
|
John Walsh
Film God
![](http://www.film-tech.com/ubbmembers/168.jpg)
Posts: 2490
From: Connecticut, USA, Earth, Milky Way
Registered: Oct 1999
|
posted 05-02-2000 10:49 AM
Note to Bryan: If you tell us what your throw, screen size and lens sizes are, we can tell you if you're at least close. Although I don't think we could tell (by just measuring) if your screen is set for 2.35 or 2.39. JP is right; the best way is with test film. Many equipment dealers will buy a roll of 35-PA and sell you short lengths. It's made with polyester base now, so it's pretty tough and will last a long time. From SMPTE, 50 feet is $170. You only need about 10 feet, and if your dealer will chop that much off, he might only charge $40. We might find 5 people here who would be willing to split the cost if we post a request.Note to John P.: I looked at that auto-focus device, and it is pretty cool! But can you see any owner buying, say 18 of them, either for a new theater, or to retofit? Also, did you ever see that old SMPTE article about the radio-remote control framing and focus V8 projectors at a Rank theater in England? And the box an operator could carry right up to the screen!? Sad to think that- 30 years ago, people were ahead of us now, at least quality-wise.
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Pytlak
Film God
![](http://www.film-tech.com/ubbmembers/331cap.gif)
Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000
|
posted 05-02-2000 12:21 PM
John Walsh:In our Kodak screening rooms, we have custom-made remote focus from the auditorium using either selsyn motors, or a geared-down bi-directional DC motor to drive the focus knob. So I guess that I'm spoiled. Someone always "focuses on the grain" from upfront to assure optimum sharpness. It would be great to have a remote focus option on regular theatre projectors, perhaps using an IR remote control operated from the auditorium. Even with a focus telescope, it's sometimes difficult to focus well from the "worst seat in the house" behind a booth viewing port.
------------------ 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
|
|
|
|
John Pytlak
Film God
![](http://www.film-tech.com/ubbmembers/331cap.gif)
Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000
|
posted 05-02-2000 01:33 PM
I certainly would NOT lay all the blame for problems like unsteadiness on the lab's doorstep. The short timelines and cost contraints of today's movie industry sometimes don't allow the labs the time or money to do the job in the optimum way. For example, for optimum steadiness a slow pin-registered step printer should be used when printing the master positive to duplicate negative. In most cases, labs are forced to use a continuous contact printer for this critical step because of time and cost constraints. Irwin Young of DuArt Labs presented an excellent paper on this topic to the SMPTE several years ago, urging a return to pin-registered printing for the intermediate stages. ------------------ 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
|
|
John Walsh
Film God
![](http://www.film-tech.com/ubbmembers/168.jpg)
Posts: 2490
From: Connecticut, USA, Earth, Milky Way
Registered: Oct 1999
|
posted 05-02-2000 02:14 PM
I'm an operator in a theater, so it pains me to admit that (by far) most of a film's presentation problems are caused by/at the theater. The chain I work for really buys good equipment and installs it correctly, but we have cheapened out on labor, mostly by usher/operator. While the "reject rate" of prints has gone up, but I bet it's something like 0.01% twenty years ago vs. 0.1% now.Of course, if you get a bad print, it sucks and I'm not saying it doesn't. But if you have limited resources, you go after the big problem causes first, and that's the theaters. Distributors deserve a big heaping hunk of blame, too, for promoting the current state affairs. But if it were me, the labs would be about the last place I go.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
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.
|