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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » About Show Prints (Page 1)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Author Topic: About Show Prints Frank Angel Film God Posts: 5305 From: Brooklyn NY USA Registered: Dec 1999 posted 04-03-2003 04:08 AM                        I just ran a show print (show print #1, if you can believe the information written on the leader) of THE HOURS. Michael Cunningham who wrote the book was here for a Q&A and Paramount sent this print directly from their offices in Manhattan. It looked SPECTACULAR -- deep color saturation and sharpness that almost hurt your eyes. Anyone who thinks DLP is going to come anywhere near this kind of film quality has to be folks who have only been looking at those high-speed prints and haven't seen a print like this. But I have a question -- I was under the impression that a show print (are they sometimes called EK prints?) will not have lab cues but will have to have the cues phyically scribed. Thing is, this print of THE HOURS had lab cues -- black circle with a very slight green edge that made it easy to see even in the dark scenes. Is it possible to have a show print AND have lab cues? It could be that someone incorrectly labeled this print as a show print, but if it isn't, then DAMN it was a beautiful print and much better than anything I have seen since those reduction prints from 65mm negs, like MY FAIR LADY, LAWRENCE, etc. I tried to see if it was Kodak's new Vision print film that John P. talks about, but now with all those digital tracks taking up the sprocket and edge geography, there were no edge markings at all on this print. Our projection report has a box for print date that used to be able to be decoded from the three symbols. I guess those are gone for good; has the industry moved to any other kind of marking that can tell what date the stock was made? Seems like just printing the date would be simple enough -- I never could figure out why they needed symbols. Frank PS, if this is NOT a show print, then some lab is doing on bang-up excellent job and I'd love to see what their showprints DO look like. DLP.....eat your heart out  |  IP: Logged Steve Kraus Film God Posts: 4094 From: Chicago, IL, USA Registered: May 2000 posted 04-03-2003 08:12 AM                    Yes, not all show prints are EK's. Some are simply selected reels. Of course in theory you could have an EK with black, halo dots but that would require punching the camera neg which is very unlikely nowadays. And of course a Super 35 show print (not "The Hours" which is 1.85) cannot be an EK if it's anamorphic (and has an analog optical soundtrack).  |  IP: Logged John Pytlak Film God Posts: 9987 From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922 Registered: Jan 2000 posted 04-03-2003 09:55 AM                        The old Kodak date symbols on print film have been replaced by the magenta edgeprint that has the complete batch identification, allowing us to track the film to the individual roll being manufactured. Example: 2383 907 074 0 27 20 K.ODAK 2003 It's usually not that hard to read the magenta numbers, even if the cyan SDDS track is printed over them. Or check the leader, which may not have the SDDS track printed through it's entire length. Here is the old code: Kodak Date Codes As Steve said, it would be very unlikely that cues would be scribed onto the original negative. So if the print has printed-in cues, it is likely from a duplicate negative. As noted, with "Duplicating Done Right", the quality of a release print can rival that from the original negative: Kodak VISION Color Intermediate Film Printing and Duplicating Procedures Using LAD to Control Duplication Steve is also correct that any anamorphic print with an optical soundtrack that was made from a Super-35 production would be printed from a duplicate negative or digital intermediate.  |  IP: Logged David Stambaugh Film God Posts: 4021 From: Eugene, Oregon Registered: Jan 2002 posted 04-03-2003 10:59 AM                        Wish I could see a show print or EK print. The proponents of DLP like to conveniently ignore the *potential* of the current film technology, which blows DLP away. Grrr... getting angry... must restrain myself...  |  IP: Logged John Pytlak Film God Posts: 9987 From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922 Registered: Jan 2000 posted 04-03-2003 11:24 AM                        The quality of the normal duplicating system can be quite good. The demos that Kodak is showing for the new Kodak VISION2 500T Color Negative Film were printed from duplicate negatives, not the original negative. Direct prints put the spliced original negative at greater risk of damage during printing, and so are not commonly used, even for "prime" engagements.  |  IP: Logged Scott Norwood Film God Posts: 8146 From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas) Registered: Jun 99 posted 04-03-2003 12:17 PM                        Show prints or EK prints seem to show up in weird places...we got an EK print (THX TAP grade "B" for all reels) of "Curse of the Jade Scorpion" at Chestnut Hill (pics in the gallery), which is little more than a typical mall theatre (which, sadly, isn't exactly known for "film done right"). It had huge, ugly handmade cue marks (much bigger than a "Clint Phare" marker would make), but was otherwise stunning. Festivals often get show prints/EK prints (which are often the only existing prints of a particular title, and going through the IP/IN stage would be unnecessary for a handful of prints) As much as I like to complain about the quality of the release prints that Deluxe Hollywood makes, I will give them credit for producing amazing-looking show prints. I agree with John that the IP/IN process can give excellent results (check out "Real Women Have Curves"--not a great film, but the prints were razor sharp, with good contrast), but it seems that it often doesn't in general practice. I don't know (or care) whether the problem is with the filmmakers, the studios, the film stock, or the labs, but something seems to prevent most wide releases from having great-looking prints. I find it very sad that modern audiences rarely have the chance to see genuinely high-quality prints. IB Technicolor prints and B&W prints made from the '50s through the '70s put most modern release prints to shame. A few of these prints are even still in circulation, though most are in private hands.  |  IP: Logged Christian Appelt Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 505 From: Frankfurt, Germany Registered: Dec 2001 posted 04-03-2003 02:42 PM                     Digital postproduction combined with "Super-35" origination has a lot to do with the lack of image quality. Yesterday I saw DAREDEVIL on a 58 ft. screen (sadly, on the last regular show of our local former MGM roadshow theatre, but that`s another story), and the first thing I noticed was an aliasing "scan line" in the 20th Century Fox logo. The film itself was a bit grainy, but at least sharp - EXCEPT for the effects scenes with heavy compositing and digital enhanced stunt work, all these shots had that slightly blurred look. But after all, with such movies, is the theatrical run really more than paid advertising for the coming DVD sales?  |  IP: Logged John Pytlak Film God Posts: 9987 From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922 Registered: Jan 2000 posted 04-03-2003 02:48 PM                        Some already insist on 4K scanning for the higher level of image quality it offers: http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/forum/featureFilms/stuartLittle.shtml http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/students/onCampus/oct2001/dfm.shtml Fortunately, Kodak technology is helping make 4K scan quality more affordable: http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products/v2/sehlin04.shtml [ 04-03-2003, 03:53 PM: Message edited by: John Pytlak ]  |  IP: Logged Steve Kraus Film God Posts: 4094 From: Chicago, IL, USA Registered: May 2000 posted 04-03-2003 08:34 PM                    One would think a logo of all things would be rendered at rez that is beyond any doubt at all. Then again, the quality of some of them even when purely analog has not always been too great, not by the time it reaches the release prints.  |  IP: Logged Bill Langfield Master Film Handler Posts: 280 From: Prospect, NSW, Australia Registered: Apr 2001 posted 04-06-2003 02:44 PM                        Hatefull fade to black at reel changes... I made up a 'show print' (what does that REALLY mean anyway?) of Nowhere in Africa today. (And LOTR1 for the GM, has he not he heard of DVD or Video) The end of reel 6 has a fade to black, I had no idea where to make the splice. Looking at the sound track I just took a guess, but I'm worried I might have cut dialougue or incluled the end of reel beep/noise. Every tail was different (to compare and do a frame count- Use another reel tail to find where the 'lab ads' started) and of course there are no change over cues to do a footage count. Has anyone else made up this film? If so, how did you decide where to make the splice? Bill!  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 04-06-2003 04:29 PM                     The "zero" frame line on the head is always going to be an absolute. Mark your cut on the next incoming reel first with a tiny black dot in the inboard sprockets (you will actually cut this there later), then if there are no cue marks, judge how many frames there are from another tail to get within a couple of frames of where you should be cutting on the outgoing reel, then physically line up the optical soundtracks side by side until they match.  |  IP: Logged John Hawkinson Film God Posts: 2273 From: Cambridge, MA, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 04-07-2003 12:41 AM                     Brad's certainly correct that the comparing the optical soundtrack of the tail against the next reel's pullup of the same soundtrack, referenced against the 0 [extrapolated from the countdown] is the right approach. But you shouldn't have any fear of including a sync pop, or missing dialogue -- just look at the soundtrack. the sync pop is very distinctive, and you need not distinguish dialogue from music. Within those boundaries, it is unlikely to be of critical import whether the fade to black lasts for 2 seconds or 2 seconds and 2 frames, so there is some available slop. So do it right if you can, but if for some reason that's not viable, visually inspect the optical soundtrack. Take a moment to go look at a 2-pop; I think it's generally 3 or 4 frames long and really distinct. --jhawk  |  IP: Logged Bill Langfield Master Film Handler Posts: 280 From: Prospect, NSW, Australia Registered: Apr 2001 posted 04-07-2003 09:52 AM                        HEY JOHN. Brad and John Wilson and I guess MANY others recommend EXACT splicing of reels. Are you telling me to rake a guess? (OH Too late I already did) Brad we are talking about a fade to black on the tail, not head. (are you asking me to run 2000 feet through the lame frame counters we have!!) What the heck is a "'zero' frame line" ? Bill!  |  IP: Logged John Hawkinson Film God Posts: 2273 From: Cambridge, MA, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 04-07-2003 09:58 AM                     Bill: Soundtrack is continuous from the tail of R(n) to the head of R(n+1). The zero-position of R(n+1) should be obvious...count 3 feet past the 3-foot marker on the leader. Then compare the optical soundtrack of the R(n+1) zero with where you think the tail of R(n) should be, and match it up. --jhawk  |  IP: Logged Bill Langfield Master Film Handler Posts: 280 From: Prospect, NSW, Australia Registered: Apr 2001 posted 04-07-2003 10:09 AM                        Hey, John, If I was to OVERLAY the tail of reel 1 with the head of reel 2. Would the optical sound tracks match up? Tried to match sound tracks up, but Erm, work load at the place WELL ya just 'get over it' (ie making up a 9 reeler (LOTR1) for the GM when he can hire the god damned DVD, can be annoying. ANYONE, is what John says in above message true? What the hell does R(n+1) mean anyway? Bill! (What the hell am I going on about)  |  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.