|
|
This topic comprises 6 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Proposed new industry standard of ID frames on leaders
|
Brad Miller
Administrator
Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99
|
posted 09-25-2004 08:37 PM
EDIT - apparently many people are unable to read and understand the point of this thread before posting. Before you post in this thread, you must pay attention and abide by my post here.
Discussion continued from this thread.
quote: Wolff King Morrow in another thread
The analog sound track will look so much cleaner than some I've seen with large differences in wave-length sizes just from dropping the 2 frames in between each reel.
Thank you for noticing. This is why chopping an ID frame at each head and tail is amazingly stupid. All it takes is one frame in occasional situations to notice a jump, but with two it's commonly obvious and any more, well those people need to be shot in the head.
The only truly acceptable solution to all sides of this argument is to leave ONE and ONLY ONE id frame at the HEAD end of the reel ONLY. Think about it. So long as there is one id frame left on the heads, the people "who have always done it this way" (back from the days when there was long quiet stationary shots at the beginning and end of each reel) will have their precious ID frame crutch, and the people who can use other methods for positive identification only have to suffer from losing one frame at the reel joints. Plus as an added bonus, people running changeovers don't have to worry about punching the changeover button an instant early to try and make the dousers switch before the missing frames project, because no frames would EVER be missing from the END of a reel, just that one from the beginning.
I'd like to see anyone on this board who doesn't agree that this is the best overall solution and compromise for all camps on this issue suggest a better solution below that does not involve lab or studio interference. Otherwise I suggest we all try and make this an industry standard. I can write up something with a little less of my "personality" in the text, and we can all start stuffing them in film cans.
[ 09-26-2004, 04:45 PM: Message edited by: Brad Miller ]
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Brad Miller
Administrator
Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99
|
posted 09-25-2004 10:09 PM
It happens all the time Manny. I am a firm believer in not cutting a single frame. The better projectionists are smart enough to match up the analog track, or edge coloring or edgeprint code when assembling a print without ID frames and as such have no need for an ID frame. You are missing the point though. I am trying to come up with a standard compromise for all parties.
By the way, you DO realize that what you propose basically will force the bootlegging of movies to make my point. I would have to bootleg a few movies assembled with no ID frames cut and put up a 10 second Quicktime of the sample reel change without missing frames, then using a non-linear editor electronically cut out two frames of picture and two frames of audio (delayed cut on that of course) and put up a 10 second comparison Quicktime for your proposal. That's ridiculous, and I have no interest in doing such a thing just to prove an obvious benefit. I also don't think the studios would approve too much of such a demo, because even though the "full length tape" would be immediately erased, I don't imagine they would like knowing that even just for one night a movie of theirs was duped to video before being erased after the changeover clips were pulled from it. If however that's really the only way to convince people of the benefits of losing as few of frames as possible while trying to compromise for all parties, then I may consider it.
If you don't see the problem with the missing frames, then you clearly aren't very picky about your presentation. All of the top notch projectionists I have worked with have seen the benefits and don't even leave a frame on ANY of the leaders. I'll say it again, the point of this thread is to find the best compromise for everyone's benefit and hopefully establish a basic standard.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Brad Miller
Administrator
Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99
|
posted 09-25-2004 10:25 PM
Scott, I get your acetate argument, but that's never going to happen again, and there is nothing that can be done for prints made 10+ years ago anyway, so that's a moot argument. I am talking about prints being made today and in the upcoming years.
quote: Scott Norwood
If those extra two frames at every changeover make a noticeable difference to the presentation, then the film is exceedingly poorly edited, anyway.
Oh really, so that's the studio/editor/filmmaker/lab's fault?
quote: Scott Norwood
Oh, and that "LFOA" crap has _got_ to go. Anyone who has run the older Kinoton machines or portable machines that don't have changeovers as such and just switch incandescent bulbs on and off or had sticky changeovers in need of cleaning will understand why.
Yet somehow crappy changeover setups are ok and it is the studio/editor/filmmaker/lab's responsibility to cover up for you? No way buddy, pick your argument and stick with it.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manny Knowles
"What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???"
Posts: 4247
From: Bloomington, IN, USA
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 09-25-2004 11:16 PM
quote: Brad Miller
Does anyone have any valid reason (given the current, typical polyester prints being made today) to leave an ID frame on the tail leader, or to leave more than one ID frame on the head leader?
Umm...Idiots in the booths?
quote: Brad Miller
If you don't see the problem with the missing frames, then you clearly aren't very picky about your presentation. All of the top notch projectionists I have worked with have seen the benefits and don't even leave a frame on ANY of the leaders.
Kindly explain the attempt to characterize me as a sloppy projectionist who doesn't care when I have already said that this is a method that I personally have adopted (since years ago)?
Frankly, I just don't have faith that the average 17 year-old minimum wage earner is going to (a) see the value in saving a frame; (b) go to the trouble of unlearning the old way and learning a new way or (c) take the risk of complicating the breakdown process.
Also, one of the theatres I worked at made it policy to retain a reference frame on each leader. New ideas like this one will probably meet some resistance from some managers, supervisors and trainers who can't admit that there's a better way than their way. For those at the lower end of the totem pole, the prevailing logic will probably be something like this: It's company policy (or "I was trained") to leave a frame on the head AND the tail and that's exactly how I'm going to do it -- 1/24th of a second (of what is quite possibly a crappy movie) is not worth losing my job over.
And there is no need to bootleg. You could prove your point with movies that are currently in theatres. Point out to what to look/listen for on a certain title and a certain reel change. What are we missing?
I guess what I'm trying to say is this: Industry standards are serious things, arising out of research and a documented need and not just because someone in a position of some authority "said so." This may be a terrific idea but unless you do the work and build up a solid case for this proposed standard, I doubt you're going to change people's minds. Surely you would agree that it is worth the effort.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Randy Stankey
Film God
Posts: 6539
From: Erie, Pennsylvania
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 09-25-2004 11:58 PM
Assuming this becomes standard throughout the industry, it could also mean fewer prints built up with one or more reels "tails-up". If the ID frame is only at the head of the reel, by logic, the other MUST be the tail.
I know... I know... What stupid idiot can't read the words, "Finish", "Foot", or "LFOA" which are already printed on the leader?! Truth is, despite these, some people STILL build prints with reels backwards! Developing a standard such as Brad's would be yet another clue to help the "mentally challenged".
If a person is taught to find the end of the film that has one frame cut off (when building a used print) before proceeding, fewer problems would occur.
The only detriment I can think of to Brad's idea would be for changeover operators who get a reel that is "Tails-Up". When inspecting a print, it can be wound directly onto the house reel as it is inspected. If it is found to be satisfactory it can be placed in the rack, ready to show. Without the ID frame at the end, if the operator doesn't know how to compare leaders or some other trick he would have to rewind the whole reel to verify the ID frame and then take the chance that it is wrong.
Ok, a shrewd person wouldn't be hindered THAT much but it IS an extra step to go through which could have been saved if there was an ID frame at the tail.
This extra step might not be needed for a person in a platter booth. If he is working on a rewind bench like he should, there will be at least one rewind to the other end of the reel, unless he gets ALL reels tails out. On the other hand, he has to trust that all reels are in proper order with the right tails on them or else he, too, could be in for an extra rewind.
I'm only posing some potential problems for certain situations, however rare they may or may not be.
If my booth was first run and got lots of nice, new prints I would have my people cut only one ID frame at the head. Unfortunately, this is not the case for me. I find myself tossing out dozens of crappy clipped-off frames on virtually every print I get! ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
| IP: Logged
|
|
Manny Knowles
"What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???"
Posts: 4247
From: Bloomington, IN, USA
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 09-26-2004 12:06 AM
quote: Randy Stankey
What stupid idiot can't read the words, "Finish", "Foot", or "LFOA" which are already printed on the leader?! Truth is, despite these, some people STILL build prints with reels backwards! Developing a standard such as Brad's would be yet another clue to help the "mentally challenged".
Well, if they're missing all of those other "industry standard" clues, who's to say they'll pick up on something like this -- which will never become 100% standard practice among all theatres. This will be even less reliable as a means of identifying heads/tails because you're still going to come across used prints that have ID frames on both leaders.
Anyway, I never thought the intent of this was to identify the head/tail of reels but, rather, a way to maximize how much of the film actually makes it on-screen.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brad Miller
Administrator
Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99
|
posted 09-26-2004 12:18 AM
Randy, yes I am referring to brand new prints, the first time they are cut. Obviously once they are cut by the first theater, there is really nothing more that can be said/done for the life of that print. Also, nothing can be done for stupid people, so let's leave them out of this.
Manny (from two posts up) trust me, everyone knows that the typical sloppy projectionists are out there. Let's leave them completely out of this, as well as general theater politics. I am only interested in hearing valid reasons as to why this would or would not be the best overall compromise to make everyone happy. Don't put any concern into how to implement it.
Also, I was not speaking directly to you as a "sloppy projectionist". I was speaking in general terms.
And more, sure the typical teenage projectionist won't give a flip about saving a frame or two, but you know as well as I do that those teenage projectionists in all probability won't be around long. Turnover rate is generally high in that age range and common multiplexes.
Manny (from the above post), yes the whole point is to maximise the amount of frames that get shown/preserved on the print to take the audio jump to it's minimal amount of distraction.
Remember everyone, the industry is filled with people who will continue to assemble prints incorrectly no matter what steps are taken. I am trying to propose a solution that at least the people here in general can adopt and be happy with. I have received far more than my fair share of prints with ID frames, and yet the leaders were not only on the wrong reels, but also heads and tails weren't even on the correct ends of the rolls. We have to leave the idiots and the rare occasions out of this discussion.
If this practice is agreed upon, I plan on making some detailed "proper buildup/breakdown procedure" tips pages that will show these standards. Other things such as not using masking tape, etc have already been discussed to death. It is the ID frame issue that still is of great debate. I am willing to consider sliding against my standards and leave one ID frame on the heads of my prints. Are the others here willing to slide the other direction and meet me in the middle of only leaving one ID frame on the head leaders of their prints? And would the sub-run theaters be pleased with this standard? ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
(Edit - Yes this idea was originally pitched by Dustin and has been discussed in at least 2-3 threads before, but without a resolution. That is why I will play Soup Nazi on this one and start deleting posts if I have to for those who cannot stick firmly to the discussion without wandering.)
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 6 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
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.
|
Home
![[evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic