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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » What do companies have against printing frame lines? (Page 1)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Author Topic: What do companies have against printing frame lines? Mark J. Marshall Film God Posts: 3188 From: New Castle, DE, USA Registered: Aug 2002 posted 01-02-2003 12:31 PM                    I was going to ask this in the New AMC Trailers thread, but it's actually a more general question. Am I expecting too much to have frame lines clearly printed on film - in particular on heads and tails of trailers and on other fade ins/outs so you can easily see where to cut? There might be a reason why companies don't do it, I just don't know what it is. AMC is guilty of this on their trailers. They fade to black, and there are NO frame lines at all once it fades out. It's not a problem cutting them because you can see the "3" on one side, and the "FINISH" on the other side. But once they're cut, it's a bitch for the next guy to figure out if it's cut correctly when looking for a bad splice.  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 01-02-2003 12:40 PM                     It's all about money. As I understand it, framelines cost more, and as such that makes them a bad thing. If you will just teach your operators to tear the splice apart during breakdown, then the next guy needs only to peel the tape off, or cut 4 perforations over. No markings are needed.  |  IP: Logged John Pytlak Film God Posts: 9987 From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922 Registered: Jan 2000 posted 01-02-2003 12:41 PM                        Standard SMPTE 301M specifies the printing of projection leader, which includes framelines. Unfortunately, most trailers and snipes are printed without this leader, to reduce costs. My other "gripes" with trailers include the practice of not using larger cores (to avoid core-set "clockspringing" and to improve focus stability), and poor packaging that doesn't keep the roll tight and clean during shipping. Maybe trailer manufacturers should take a cue from Kodak and vacuum-package their film in tough plastic bags --- even a "seal-a-meal" would do a fine job: Vacuum Seal Packaging  |  IP: Logged James R. Hammonds, Jr Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 931 From: Houston, TX, USA Registered: Nov 2000 posted 01-02-2003 01:10 PM                     Unless I am mistaken, the first batch of new AMC snipes were printed by Deluxe and not Filmack. Filmack didn't have additional ads ready for ordereing when we got the preliminary batch, and said they would be available starting the first. Since they were printed at Deluxe, there are no printed frame lines, no Scotchguard, and the SRD track printed on. The old AMC Previews, Silence is Golden, an Feature Presentations that were done at Filmack had nice white frame lies in all non-picture areas, Scothguard, and no SRD track. Im guessing when we start getting more of these from Filmack, we'll see more of the same, with te possible exception of the SRD track being left on.  |  IP: Logged Mark J. Marshall Film God Posts: 3188 From: New Castle, DE, USA Registered: Aug 2002 posted 01-02-2003 02:29 PM                    quote: It's all about money. As I understand it, framelines cost more, and as such that makes them a bad thing. ??? Figures. One would think on features that fade out and/or fade in at a reel change they would clearly mark ONE frame line at least so you could see where things start/end. I know lots of tricks to figure it out, but the point is, I shouldn't have to. Oh, well.  |  IP: Logged Mark J. Marshall Film God Posts: 3188 From: New Castle, DE, USA Registered: Aug 2002 posted 01-02-2003 02:31 PM                    Jim, Do yours have the same funny little white markings on the analog track on the tail of the "Coming Soon"? Ours have it on both the scope and flat versions.  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 01-02-2003 04:17 PM                        In the future please just edit your existing post instead of making a new post a couple of minutes later... thanks. Anything that costs money is bad. Anything. Period. Money belongs in only one place... the pockets of the CEO! If Filmack is using Scotchgard/Photogard/Imagegard on their snipes, then Filmack sucks! I have heard cases that after a year or two they start reflecting the light from the sound reader in a way to where the sound becomes pretty messed up and eventually unusable. In fact someone was bitching at me because this happened when they used Filmguard. A year later after several dizen runs per day, it was unplayable. It was eventually discovered that it was Photogard that caused the problem, and the person relaying the incident confused the two names.  |  IP: Logged Doug Willming Film Handler Posts: 45 From: San Antonio, TX, USA Registered: Jan 2001 posted 01-02-2003 05:28 PM                        As a guy who actually makes policy trailers, and has spent more than a few hours on rewinds trying to figure where framelines are, I understand the problem. I have been frustrated in the past trying to set up negs to include black leader with frame lines only to have some guy at the lab chop it off and edit the lab leader with a splice right before the picture starts. I usually use CFI for printing now, and they use a short academy (2pop only leader) that looks like it would work ok most of the time. As for Scotchgard, I know some people swear by it, but I think it is mainly a source of extra profit by Filmack, who seems to be the only one anymore extolling it's virtues. I don't know of any labs that offer it anymore and the people at CFI and Deluxe have both told me they consider it a waste of money and that there is no demand for it. I don't mean to slam a competitor - but I have lost some business in the past from folks that just refused to buy a print of something without Scotchgard. I guess this is kind of a new thread, but what do you guys think of it? Does it offer any added value? Doug Willming PreShow Productions  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 01-02-2003 05:41 PM                     Nope! If anything it makes the print worse. Focus suffers and the entire picture is unsteady with the Photoguard applied. What the extra money should be spent on is quality filmstock. I never did like that Agfa stuff the old Cinemark trailers were printed on. I remember getting some advance copies on Kodak LPP stock that looked magnificent, but when the regular crate 'o policy trailers arrived, the Agfa prints lacked bite to the image.  |  IP: Logged Doug Willming Film Handler Posts: 45 From: San Antonio, TX, USA Registered: Jan 2001 posted 01-02-2003 06:18 PM                        We don't use Agfa anymore at all - CFI said they dropped it because of problems (major inconsistencies in the stock, apparently). I never much liked it either, but it was cheap, and when the circuits are hammering you for price breaks...... We usually use Fuji now - better price than Kodak and nobody's complained so far... any comments?  |  IP: Logged Tim Reed Better Projection Pays Posts: 5246 From: Northampton, PA Registered: Sep 1999 posted 01-02-2003 06:28 PM                       quote: I usually use CFI for printing now, and they use a short academy (2pop only leader) that looks like it would work ok Doug, I shoot my digital negatives starting at the 3 and the lab uses it intact, after splicing the remainder of an SMPTE leader to the head. I make the black section between "2" and the start of the picture a shade of grey, so when the theatre gets the trailer, it's obvious where the frame line is. I also do this at the end (and on mid-roll slates). Leaves no question as to framelines. Btw, how's CFI on IP/DN's - do they insist on it, even if you're only having a handful of prints struck? Tim Screen Attractions  |  IP: Logged Tim Reed Better Projection Pays Posts: 5246 From: Northampton, PA Registered: Sep 1999 posted 01-02-2003 06:36 PM                       quote: We usually use Fuji now - better price than Kodak and nobody's complained so far... any comments? Ditto here. Our last few projects have been shot and printed on Fuji, which I like the color saturation of. I still have some NOS prints on AGFA, though. Good results for the price.  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 01-02-2003 06:45 PM                     Fuji? No problem with it at all. I find it tends to have richer colors and tends to have sharper contrast, but that could also be the way New Line shoots. New Line (Fuji) prints almost always have super deep black blacks and vibrant colors. Then again, New Line also commonly has inexcusable negative and interpositive dirt. I've noticed that Two Towers seems to be plagued with the "green syndrome", where whites are actually a very light shade of green. I've noticed each studio tends to have a "look" like this (with exceptions of course). For example, Warner Bros has a nice clean sharp look to their image, but there is always too much green (Kodak). Buena Vista is the best, as their whites are actually stark white and their blacks are commonly pitch black (Kodak). Paramount seems to get it right 50% of the time (Kodak). They either have magnificent color balance and excellent contrast, or it is murky and green with poor registration. Sony is hit and miss, but I've never been completely impressed with any Sony print. Dreamworks is probably #2 or 3 on my list. Most of the time they have excellent prints, but often they don't have the "bite" that BV and New Line does. Can anyone explain why the pattern from studio to studio? I would have assumed it would've depended on the DP and director of the film, but I keep seeing these consistencies. And what is it with the lab's fascination with green???  |  IP: Logged Gordon McLeod Film God Posts: 9532 From: Toronto Ontario Canada Registered: Jun 99 posted 01-02-2003 10:12 PM                     Color timing is an art in itself and budget dictates how much time is allowed for it  |  IP: Logged John Pytlak Film God Posts: 9987 From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922 Registered: Jan 2000 posted 01-03-2003 07:58 AM                        Brad wrote: "Fuji? No problem with it at all. I find it tends to have richer colors and tends to have sharper contrast, but that could also be the way New Line shoots. New Line (Fuji) prints almost always have super deep black blacks and vibrant colors. Then again, New Line also commonly has inexcusable negative and interpositive dirt. I've noticed that Two Towers seems to be plagued with the "green syndrome", where whites are actually a very light shade of green." Each manufacturer's print stock has a different "look". Certainly the lab's color timing and process chemistry can affect the color and tone scale, but having whites that are consistently "a very light shade of green" may be a stock characteristic. White (negative) dirt may be from poor handling of the negative, but often is due to dirt on the print film raw stock, that casts a "shadow image", leaving a white speck. Again, often a stock characteristic. Kodak VISION Color Print Film was designed to have very little dirt from slitting and perforating, and the finishing operations have been engineered to produce the cleanest possible product. IMHO, the difference shows on the screen.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

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.