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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » Odd interframe marks on Frida? (Page 1)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Author Topic: Odd interframe marks on Frida? John Hawkinson Film God Posts: 2273 From: Cambridge, MA, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 03-20-2003 05:27 PM                     Has anyone seen these peculiar inter-frame marks before: (Hmm, it looks a little twisted, but it's basically just a thin white line). They seem to show up every 5 frames on the tail of Frida's R4. I ended up with an uncut tail, and the first mark was between the last frame and the rest of the movie, and at first I thought, "Wow, are they trying to encourage projectionists to @b[cut the ID frame right here]?". But then I looked further and they seem to repeat every 5 frames. What causes these? --jhawk  |  IP: Logged Rachel Craven Madam Moderator Posts: 2190 From: Pensacola, FL Registered: Dec 2000 posted 03-20-2003 05:34 PM                     Took a peek of my print of Frida and didn't notice this, although I didn't get the best look.  |  IP: Logged Patrick McDonough Expert Film Handler Posts: 118 From: Greenfield Ma. Registered: Jul 2002 posted 03-20-2003 07:10 PM                     When we had our copy I didn't notice anything like that.  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 03-20-2003 07:38 PM                     I do remember seeing it on mine. At first glance it looked like someone cut the negative, then decided to extend the shot, but those marks are clearly not negative splices. I don't have any idea what it is.  |  IP: Logged Tim Reed Better Projection Pays Posts: 5246 From: Northampton, PA Registered: Sep 1999 posted 03-20-2003 07:40 PM                       It's a video retrace line.  |  IP: Logged John Hawkinson Film God Posts: 2273 From: Cambridge, MA, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 03-20-2003 09:15 PM                     I haven't really had a chance to look at our print in detail (I wasn't the one inspecting it...), but we had a replacement reel 4, and both reel 4s have this at the tail...but not at the head. I'll try to look in more detail if I have a chance this weekend. --jhawk  |  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 03-20-2003 09:35 PM                        Shouldn't this be on a secure server?  |  IP: Logged John Pytlak Film God Posts: 9987 From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922 Registered: Jan 2000 posted 03-22-2003 06:23 AM                        Interesting. Was "Frida" done using digital intermediate?  |  IP: Logged Tao Yue Expert Film Handler Posts: 209 From: Princeton, NJ Registered: Apr 2001 posted 03-22-2003 11:05 AM                        Frida was color-timed at EFilm: http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/students/filmtech/prieto.shtml The Kodak article's reference to digital "squeezing" of Super 35 into anamorphic is a bit puzzling, though, given that the film is flat ...  |  IP: Logged John Pytlak Film God Posts: 9987 From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922 Registered: Jan 2000 posted 03-22-2003 05:33 PM                        That article was a reprint from the February 2003 issue of "Film and Video" magazine, reprinted on the Kodak website. Being a digital intermediate could explain such an "electronic" artifact in the frameline.  |  IP: Logged Michael Schaffer "Where is the Boardwalk Hotel?" Posts: 4143 From: Boston, MA Registered: Apr 2002 posted 03-22-2003 05:49 PM                        What would cause the artefact?  |  IP: Logged John Pytlak Film God Posts: 9987 From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922 Registered: Jan 2000 posted 03-22-2003 05:56 PM                        It appears that somehow the image was scanned onto the film with a slight overlap at the frameline.  |  IP: Logged John Hawkinson Film God Posts: 2273 From: Cambridge, MA, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 03-22-2003 11:29 PM                     For the record, I looked a bit harder at Frida this afternoon. I saw the effect (every 5th frame) for most scenes on R4, but not all of them. I didn't see it on other reels. In addition to Tao's Kodak link, there's also an article in American Cinematographer, Oct 2002. It doesn't spend much time on the digital side of things, but surprisingly it asserts that Frida was shot in "Anamorphic 1.85:1". I guess that might mean they shot with anamorphic lenses onto super 35 (for the extra width?! why?) and then digitally 2x'd it and framed it for 1.85:1. That seems totally bizarre though, so perhaps it's just an error. Maybe they planned on doing Frida in scope and then changed their minds? I'd have expected that to be mentioned in some of the articles. As for resolution, an SGI/EFILM press-release briefly mentions Frida, and goes on to suggest that EFILM is a 2k house. (Huh. I didn't know EFILM was a subsidiary of Panavision and Deluxe Laboratories...) I'll agree that the fact that Frida is digital intermediate is simply too significant to overlook, and that it is probably related, since we don't know how the traditional process would produce this effect. I still don't understand why it would be so regular every 5 frames. I mean, it's not as if the telecine scans 20 perfs at once, right? Well, I guess we can chalk this up as one of those benign mysteries of life. --jhawk  |  IP: Logged Steve Kraus Film God Posts: 4094 From: Chicago, IL, USA Registered: May 2000 posted 03-23-2003 12:29 AM                    Ads for Clairmont Camera (a rental house) used to tout the advantages of Super 1.85, claiming it made the release prints look as sharp as dailies. I doubt there were many takers since most filmmakers would rather not have their entire show have to go through an optical printer if it can be avoided. BUT now that the age of the digital intermediate is upon us it would make sense to use the full width of the film since the conversion can be handled digitally.  |  IP: Logged Darryl Spicer Film God Posts: 3250 From: Lexington, KY, USA Registered: Dec 2000 posted 03-23-2003 12:43 AM                    quote: The filmmakers framed Frida in the standard 1.85:1 aspect ratio, in part to better represent the vertical architecture at the show?s numerous locations. "Titus [shot in Super 35 by Luciano Tovoli, ASC, AIC] is one of the best-framed movies I?ve ever seen," Prieto remarks. "The use of widescreen is just incredible, so going into Frida I thought Julie might want to use widescreen again. But a lot of our locations were vertical, and Frida?s paintings are vertical. Shooting in 1.85 enabled us to get closer to her paintings without cropping into them." here is an excert from the artical that JHawk was talking about. I don't understand where they got the anamorphic 1.85 from when it says they used standart 1.85 ratio.  |  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.