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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » Harry Potter 2 Changeover dots (Page 1)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Author Topic: Harry Potter 2 Changeover dots Demetris Thoupis Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1240 From: Aradippou, Larnaca, Cyprus Registered: Apr 2001 posted 12-09-2002 12:43 PM                     Hi all, We just screened Harry Potter two in a changeover theater. In my great amazement none of the nine reels of the film had the changeover dots on the top right of the picture signifying the changeover start and picture. Is this only on this print or do others have noticed it to?  |  IP: Logged John Pytlak Film God Posts: 9987 From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922 Registered: Jan 2000 posted 12-09-2002 12:47 PM                        What lab did the printing? Others here have reported that some European labs are no longer putting changeover cues on the printing negative, assuming all theatres are using platters --- NOT!  |  IP: Logged John Hawkinson Film God Posts: 2273 From: Cambridge, MA, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 12-09-2002 01:02 PM                     US prints (not sure what lab) had regular IP lab cues, but they were extremely dark and hard to see. This was the case on the first Harry Potter film as well. --jhawk  |  IP: Logged John Pytlak Film God Posts: 9987 From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922 Registered: Jan 2000 posted 12-09-2002 01:05 PM                        US prints would likely be from Technicolor Laboratories in North Hollywood or Mirabel (Montreal) Quebec, who usually handle Warner Bros. printing.  |  IP: Logged Bill Gabel Film God Posts: 3873 From: Technicolor / Postworks NY, USA Registered: Jan 2002 posted 12-09-2002 01:26 PM                     We had a print of "Nicholas Nickleby", that came from Deluxe London. On the first three reels the cues were so hard to see. The rest of the print looked OK. The film is a very darkly shot feature (Sup35). The Sup35 answer print looked great. But the director rejected the print. He later told us, that the reason we could not see the cues right. Was Deluxe got a bad batch of Kodak stock. That they used. I have had some really nice prints come out of Deluxe London.  |  IP: Logged John Pytlak Film God Posts: 9987 From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922 Registered: Jan 2000 posted 12-09-2002 03:01 PM                        Bill Gabel wrote: "He later told us, that the reason we could not see the cues right. Was Deluxe got a bad batch of Kodak stock. That they used. I have had some really nice prints come out of Deluxe London." Never heard of a print that was too "dark" to see the cues being a film stock issue. If the lab could not produce a print to their liking due to the film's sensitometry, they would immediately use another batch of stock.  |  IP: Logged Bill Gabel Film God Posts: 3873 From: Technicolor / Postworks NY, USA Registered: Jan 2002 posted 12-09-2002 03:28 PM                     John That's what they told the director. It was not a release print. United Artists sent this print for a screening. We did not know till the day before that it was going to be a composite print. They had booked the screening and we were going to use the Sup35 answer print with MO's. This may have been a rush job by Deluxe London. I have gotten prints from different labs that post-production have rejected on other films. Because of stock issues. On "Gangs of New York", I ran so many reels for Marty & Thelma . They looked at different Kodak stocks for printing. But the "Nicholas" print was very dark in the printing. You could not see the cues without a lupe. I ran the Sup35 answer print for the director, a week earlier. It looked very nice for being Sup35.  |  IP: Logged John Pytlak Film God Posts: 9987 From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922 Registered: Jan 2000 posted 12-09-2002 03:59 PM                        Preferring one film for contrast (e.g., 2383 vs. 2393)--- maybe. But the entire film being too "dark" is likely just a printing issue that a few less points of printer TRIM would solve.  |  IP: Logged Steve Kraus Film God Posts: 4094 From: Chicago, IL, USA Registered: May 2000 posted 12-09-2002 04:27 PM                    But a punched dot is going to be black regardless of the timing of the overall print with only minor variations due to processing (& possible silver retention). And the ink on the hole edge is going to print clear or nearly so. Naturally no one is going to lighten the print density just to make the dots stand out nor is there a need to with the halo (inked) dots. If I think some cues may have visibility problems I give them the Clint Phare treatment. That's what the bench inspection is for. As Holiday Inns used to say: The best surprise is no surprise. I ran both HP's here via C/O but have no specific recollection about the dots. I also worked test runs of both in workprint (native Super 35) form but those ran as single strands via platter and MUT.  |  IP: Logged Bill Gabel Film God Posts: 3873 From: Technicolor / Postworks NY, USA Registered: Jan 2002 posted 12-09-2002 04:34 PM                     Steves right if you can't see the cue, properly I give it the Clint Phare treatment. Those cues on that print were black on a very dark surface. (No Halos) I used the footage counter and a lupe, to find and mark those reels. I scribe only in extreme cases. But most of the time I use small paper dots like our editors use.  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 12-09-2002 04:43 PM                     So instead of permanently scratching in cues on a print that is distracting to the audience and also may not play in a changeover house again, why not make an edgemark with either CPI's EdgeMark tape or a strip of opaque yellow splicing tape along the edge of the film? Once you see the tape pull off of the reel, just hit the motor switch right as it hits the gate. From there if you don't want to make a second edgemark you can watch the outgoing projector's framing window to know when to hit the changeover. I've done this countless times on repertory and one-of-a-kind prints where I didn't want to make any marks on the film that would live with it forever. The audience will never know and the tape can be easily peeled off when you are finished with the print.  |  IP: Logged Patrick de Groot Expert Film Handler Posts: 161 From: Sprang-Capelle, Netherlands Registered: Apr 2001 posted 12-09-2002 04:47 PM                     Why would you still use change-overs? In one theater I work at (a small cinema with 2 auditoriums) we put Harry Potter reel 1 t/m 4 on spool 1. At the end of reel 4 is the intermission. Reel 5 t/m 9 is on spool 2 so you can thread that one and start it after the intermission. You can rewind spool 1 during the intermission and thread another projector with it if needed.  |  IP: Logged Daryl C. W. O'Shea Film God Posts: 3977 From: Midland Ontario Canada (where Panavision & IMAX lenses come from) Registered: Jun 2002 posted 12-09-2002 04:48 PM                        You don't even need to watch the out-going projector. Just count to eight. I've also found that a single piece of clear splicing tape across the motor cue frame works good. If you don't here it click you'll likely be able to pick it out on the screen if you're really watching. As for changeovers, we do them because... intermissions suck!  |  IP: Logged Gordon McLeod Film God Posts: 9532 From: Toronto Ontario Canada Registered: Jun 99 posted 12-09-2002 05:28 PM                     Patrick said"Why would you still use change-overs?" There are many machines that are limited due to design to a 4000' reel max or in some cases 2000' due to the magazines being either part of the base or the mech. Also in the world there are many changeover theatres still  |  IP: Logged Scott Norwood Film God Posts: 8146 From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas) Registered: Jun 99 posted 12-09-2002 06:04 PM                        Brad brings up an interesting question: if one gets a print without cue marks, is it better to make temporary cues (stickers, splicing/edgemark tape, grease pencil dots, etc.) or permanent cues (with a Clint Phare device)? Generally, I will use the Clint Phare, on the assumption that it's better to add permanent cues "properly" than to risk the print going to a house without a Clint Phare device where someone might use a hole punch or other inappropriate tool to add cues. On the other hand, I agree that many prints may never play in a changeover house again (or, if they do, they might be shown on large reels, where cues aren't necessary every 20 minutes). Thus, for once-only shows, I've occasionally used a grease pencil to add (messy, but easily removable) cue marks, though I might have to pick up some of the edgemark tape. Does the edgemark tape work on 16mm, too? I don't personally find properly made cues to be distracting (unless there is more than one pair per reel), but I can see why others might. I've probably spent more time (hours) running platter houses, but the vast majority of theatres where I have worked (over the last five years or so) have had changeover booths, so I can definitely see both sides to this. Thoughts?  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

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.