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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » Print Quality (Page 1)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Author Topic: Print Quality Ian Bailey Master Film Handler Posts: 317 From: Nambucca Heads, Australia Registered: Jun 2003 posted 01-28-2004 05:27 PM                     Being very new to this game whenever I get a print that just doesn't look great on the screen I go straight to my equipment to see what needs adjusting or if something isn't right.95% of the time nothing is wrong with the gear.Is this just something I have to expect that some prints have bad focus,poor colour and brightness etc and other prints will look great? At the moment my print of Somethings Gotta Give -no way you can get a sharp focus.LOTR-ROTK looks excellent-sharp focus,good colour etc.We put every print through our film cleaner(using Filmguard)as it is made up.Is it worth demanding another print if there is no mechanical damage just poor projected image-wouldn't i get exactly the same back?  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 01-28-2004 06:26 PM                        I can relate about "Something's Gotta Give." That movie had sort of a soft focus quality. Probably to enhance the looks of the stars?  |  IP: Logged Bill Enos Film God Posts: 2081 From: Richmond, Virginia, USA Registered: Apr 2000 posted 01-29-2004 01:23 AM                     Unfortunately the audience fails to understand that soft focus is frequently done intentionally for effect. Also it seems the older the stars, the softer the focus. One night a few years ago after one guy bitched about the focus 3 times, I told the manager to send the asshole up to take a whack at it. His very cocky attitude was quickly humbled when he tried to focus a very dark, soft picture from 110 feet.  |  IP: Logged John Pytlak Film God Posts: 9987 From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922 Registered: Jan 2000 posted 01-29-2004 08:25 AM                        Yes, it is very common for cinematographers to use diffusion or soft focus for older talent, or for "period" pieces. Using lower resolution digital intermediate and CGI to save money and time can limit sharpness, and sometimes results in visible digital artifacts. Super-35 can produce fine images, but compared to "true" anamorphic, "Size DOES Matter". Likewise, Super-16 origination can be surprisingly good, but it certainly won't match good 35mm. And nothing comes close to 65mm. And I won't even get into movies shot on DV or HD.  |  IP: Logged Jeff Taylor Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 601 From: Chatham, NJ/East Hampton, NY Registered: Apr 2000 posted 01-29-2004 09:02 AM                     It always amused me in some of the older films (Garbo, Davis, Crawford, etc.) when shots of the female lead would be heavily "gauzed" and cut into otherwise sharp footage. At least most cinematographers today try to achieve an overall look rather than the jarring changes.  |  IP: Logged Randy Stankey Film God Posts: 6539 From: Erie, Pennsylvania Registered: Jun 99 posted 01-29-2004 01:08 PM                     When I train new operators I tell them to be on the lookout for limited depth of field, selective focus or diffused focus effects in the movie. Often the director or D.P. call for these things to (supposedly) enhance the movie. Sometimes you'll even see a shift in focus during a dialog between two people where "Character A" is in focus when he is delivering his lines then, without panning the camera, the focus shifts to "Character B". Sometimes these effects can be subtile enough to make you think the projector is out of focus when it really isn't. I, too, have had complaints from people who have thought I wasn't focusing the projector well enough. I have used Bill's trick of letting people focus the picture themselves on occasion. Shuts 'em up pretty quick! Another trick when I get a complaint like that is to momentarily defocus the image and then refocus. People will see that on the screen and "know" that somebody has come to fix the problem, no matter how nonexistant it really was. As simple as focusing a lens sounds, it's really a skill that has to be developed. You have to develop the "eye" to know where to look on the screeen at any given moment to get the right focus. Once in a while I will go stand right in front of the screen and call up to the booth to "spot" for the operator while he focuses. Someday, I'd like to see if using binoculars or a spotting scope really works.  |  IP: Logged David Stambaugh Film God Posts: 4021 From: Eugene, Oregon Registered: Jan 2002 posted 01-29-2004 01:53 PM                        quote: Another trick when I get a complaint like that is to momentarily defocus the image and then refocus. People will see that on the screen and "know" that somebody has come to fix the problem, no matter how nonexistant it really was. In all the times I've complained/whined about what I thought was bad focus, I've never once seen this occur. Well, maybe once.  |  IP: Logged Peter Mork Expert Film Handler Posts: 181 From: Newton, MA, USA Registered: Jun 2002 posted 01-29-2004 02:30 PM                     Not a skill, it's an art! Films shot with handheld cameras can be especially tough to do. The easiest thing to focus on would be a long steady shot of something with a lot of texture, like grains of sand - but how often do we get that?  |  IP: Logged John Pytlak Film God Posts: 9987 From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922 Registered: Jan 2000 posted 01-29-2004 02:39 PM                        Focusing on the grain of the image is definitive, but with modern Kodak VISION and VISION2 color negative films, even high speed camera films usually have very fine grain. Our screening rooms in Kodak have remote focusing, that allows the focus to be adjusted from the front of the theatre. I've also seen "focusing telescopes" or binoculars used if the throw is long -- just be sure they are in focus too, maybe able to see the screen perforations.  |  IP: Logged Gary Crawford Expert Film Handler Posts: 200 From: Neptune NJ USA Registered: Nov 2003 posted 01-29-2004 02:46 PM                     I've tried the "come on up here and you try it" idea but when they see that steel ladder going "up there somewhere" they usually go away. We open with Jack & Diane tomorrow (Friday) so I'll be looking for that (what we used to call) "Doris Day Fuzz." Best place to focus is on actors' eyes. That usually works, or something "busy" with lots of texture. I've noticed that ratings all seem soft the last few years. Trim up crystal clear and sharp on the tiny credits and the rating looks too soft. By then everyone is out anyway.  |  IP: Logged David Favel Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 764 From: Ashburton, New Zealand Registered: Feb 2002 posted 01-29-2004 03:26 PM                     I usually prefer actors faces. With the exception of Morgan Freeman. Can't seem ever to focus that guy.  |  IP: Logged Jon Miller Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 973 From: San Diego, CA, USA Registered: Sep 1999 posted 01-29-2004 09:36 PM                     John Pytlak wrote... quote: And I won't even get into movies shot on DV or HD. Tell me about it... In my film-festival stints I've had to deal with more video-to-film transfers than I care to remember. Even when I think I've got the focus spot-on as the opening credits roll, the lower resolution still quietly drives me nuts and makes me want to tweak the focus even more, even though I realize there's almost nothing to gain. (At least the situation is better than the combination of sometimes fuzzy computer-animation shorts and ancient projection lenses I had to deal with when I ran "Spike and Mike's Festival of Animation" showings in the early 1990s. Explaining this to a complainer, which I had to do a few times and in a way to minimize embarrassment, was a bit of a challenge. )  |  IP: Logged Leo Enticknap Film God Posts: 7474 From: Loma Linda, CA Registered: Jul 2000 posted 01-30-2004 02:11 AM                        quote: I've also seen "focusing telescopes" or binoculars used if the throw is long -- just be sure they are in focus too, maybe able to see the screen perforations. I once did a few relief shifts at a small two-screen which had easily the longest throw of any cinema I ever worked at. Screen 2 was built at the rear of what was once a single auditorium. Screen 1's beam projected across a roof void over the top of the smaller auditorium, through a second port glass, and then across the main auditorium to the screen. I couldn't give you the exact throw, but you'll get some idea from the fact that the 1:1.85 lens was something like 165mm! I did have real problems focusing, simply because the screen was too far away for me to see it properly. So on the second weekend I bought a pair of binoculars with me. Problem sorted, and several of the staff there commented that the picture was sharper than they'd ever seen it! quote: As simple as focusing a lens sounds, it's really a skill that has to be developed. You have to develop the "eye" to know where to look on the screeen at any given moment to get the right focus. Assuming that there are no heat issues with the projector and that all reels of the feature are printed on the same sort of stock you should not (in theory, at least) have to make any focus adjustments once a feature has started, if it's all running from one machine. One thing I found in a number of sites is that it's very important to strike the lamp a few minutes before showtime, otherwise expanding metal will cause the focus to drift during the first few minutes of the show. The same goes with 6,000 changeovers; with 2,000 changeovers I'd always leave both lamps running throughout the show. When the feature starts, I would look for a reference point (not the opening censor certificate or distributor logo, which is often printed on separate stock from the actual film), set the focus, and then leave it unless there was something clearly not right. I also found that if there was a complaint arising from either a bad print or intentional soft focus effects, throwing the focus drastically out and then bringing it back slowly to where you started usually shuts 'em up. During the changeover from acetate to polyester focusing could be living hell, because you'd often get a print with some reels on acetate and others on poly.  |  IP: Logged Carl Martin Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1424 From: Oakland, CA, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 01-30-2004 03:17 AM                        our upstairs theaters (converted balcony) have slightly off-axis projection and lately focussing there has been an adventure. with new features, the credits, especially on one side, would be very soft without retouching the focus a couple times during the show. it seems to get better over the run. downstairs we have horrible keystoning but focus stays on. must be the lens. carl  |  IP: Logged Michael Rourke Expert Film Handler Posts: 159 From: San Luis Obispo, Central Coast of CA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 01-30-2004 03:34 AM                     The newest problem is Steven Soderbergs trademark grainy image that everyone thinks is out of focus, it happened with Out of Sight, Erin Brockovich and Traffic. Some trailers are even shot soft, like that horrible movie The Skulls, that trailer was really soft, everyone was backlit and had an aura.  |  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.