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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » GWTW @ Loews Jersey - Mitchell Dvoskin ? (Page 1)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Author Topic: GWTW @ Loews Jersey - Mitchell Dvoskin ? William Hooper Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1879 From: Mobile, AL USA Registered: Jun 99 posted 02-18-2005 02:19 AM                        I just read that the Loews Jersey will be running Gone With The Wind on March 6. Mitchell Dvoskin: are you running this one? Be aware that the last (recent-ish) release was good looking IB, but it was printed anamorphically 1.37 in the scope frame. In other words, it requires a scope lens. The big caution is for proscenium theaters (like the Loews Jersey). If you're not running common height, but instead running scope pictures all the way side-to-side & 1.37 all the way top-to-bottom, the picture will be just a reduced chunk in the middle of the screen - a piece out of the middle of the scope picture. I got surprised by that print a while back, management squawked on the radio & RAN up to the booth when they saw a reel run before the house opened, & afterwards said they were absolutely embarassed & upset to have shown that little picture to a paying audience that came out to see GWTW "on the big screen". Unless you're running common height anyway for scope & academy, check & be sure which print you're getting. If it's the scope print, it's pretty, but get a shorter prime for the anamorphic(s) to get the height to your usual 1.37 vertical height. I wish I'd known beforehand!  |  IP: Logged Stephen Furley Film God Posts: 3059 From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England Registered: May 2002 posted 02-18-2005 03:13 AM                     quote: William Hooper Be aware that the last (recent-ish) release was good looking IB, but it was printed anamorphically 1.37 in the scope frame. In other words, it requires a scope lens. I believe that a small number of 'proper' Academy prints were also made for this release. I have no idea what print the Loew's will be using for this show. The Academy picture there is large, both top and side masking move. I don't know the actual picture size, no doubt Mitchell can tell us. A fair proportion of the films they run there are Academy ratio, and the picture looks good. I hope they do not have to use an anamorphic print, which would not be ideal. I am hoping to be there, but there is a problem at work; I would have to fly back overnight on the Sunday, 8 something Monday morning into Gatwick, and there is something happeing at work at Monday that I am supposed to be at. I'm trying to get released from it at the moment, but it might be difficult. The alternative is to drink lots of strong black coffee, and try to stay awake through it. Anybody else going to be there?  |  IP: Logged Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 02-18-2005 04:01 AM                     quote: William Hooper Be aware that the last (recent-ish) release was good looking IB, but it was printed anamorphically 1.37 in the scope frame. In other words, it requires a scope lens. I ran that release of GWTW in 1998 at Edwards, and yes it was the anamorphic (1.37/1) printing, but have to beware with using the digital sound formats with this print: Being the IB as it was, all of the soundtracks were the silver soundtracks being printed on that black and white positive stock (I forget the name of that transfer dye stock)-not the magenta, nor the cyan tracks as we have now. All of the digital formats had a hard time in being picked up by the red LED system. If one has the old exciter lamp system, then at least, optical would be no problem. DTS had a hard time reading the timecode-would bounce between digital and optical. SRD would have massive failure rates and bounce between the two systems processes as well. And the SDDS was flopping between digital and mono-being this process bypasses the other processors and heads straight to the amplifiers. We had to finally "force" the CP-500's to read the "01" format (mono) and crank up the sound for proper volume. Granted, it was great to see this famous film back on the big screen, yet why the anamorphic process, whereas they could have shrunk it down in a 1.85/1 framebox as Warners did with "the Wizard of Oz" later on that year-which looked GREAT on a big screen. Outside of the sound problems, the only real gimp,presentationwise of this release, was the first reel and a couple of other reels, in which I can't remember the reel numbers. The original nitrate 3-strip negatives had shrunk a tad causing the three color blurs around the characters and some scenery. Then after this blur, very sharp picture,esp the aftermath of Atlanta was in order. Just words of warning if this release, which was from New Line, emerged again to certain theatres. -Monte  |  IP: Logged Stephen Furley Film God Posts: 3059 From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England Registered: May 2002 posted 02-18-2005 04:40 AM                     quote: Monte L Fullmer DTS had a hard time reading the timecode-would bounce between digital and optical. I'm surprised that you would have any problems reading a silver DTS track; the silver should block the red light quite effectively, and the bit-rate is so low, that it ought to be difficult to mis-read a track. I don't know if the Loew's has converted to red readers; they hadn't two years ago when I was last in the box there. Since they don't normally run new films the cyan track issue should affect them, so for as long as they can get exciter lamps, there's no real reason to convert.  |  IP: Logged Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 02-18-2005 04:51 AM                     quote: Stephen Furley I'm surprised that you would have any problems reading a silver DTS track; the silver should block the red light quite effectively... ...and I do fully agree with you, for we also had a IB print of "Family Man" with Nick Cage, and this print was also a IB print that had a good silver soundtrack area where we had no problems with any of the digital reads. (what was funny though that my other operators have never seen a IB print, let along the silver soundtrack areas...they thought something was wrong with this print and they wanted me to call up for a replacement print. I just about shot one operator who was thinking of calling booking for print replacement..lol) It was just this print of "GWTW", and it could have been this only print that we really had problems with. I noticed that the silver area of that print was much lighter than a usual silver based optical area (as with "Family Man") and this could have been our cause of the digital problems. thx-Monte  |  IP: Logged Mitchell Dvoskin Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1869 From: West Milford, NJ, USA Registered: Jan 2001 posted 02-18-2005 08:29 AM                     Yes, I am aware that the prints are 1.37 in an anamorphic frame. This is why we are running it on an afternoon by itself, so people will not see us going from our normal huge 1.37 flat picture to a much smaller flat picture. To the best of my knowledge, no full frame prints were struck from this release.  |  IP: Logged Stephen Furley Film God Posts: 3059 From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England Registered: May 2002 posted 02-18-2005 09:39 AM                     Mitchell, my mistake, I believe it was 'Wizard of Oz' which had a few 'proper' prints made for its last release, with the others being 1.37 within 1.85.  |  IP: Logged Scott Norwood Film God Posts: 8146 From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas) Registered: Jun 99 posted 02-18-2005 09:52 AM                        Wouldn't it be possible to use the regular 1.33 backup lenses (thus giving the proper image height) with the anamorphic attachments? Yes, you'd have to crop the top and bottom edges of the frame slightly (unless you can raise the top masking from the normal 1.33 position), and, yes, you'd have to cut new plates (probably from pinhole plates), but this would probably be preferable to presenting a very small image. Might be worht a try, anyway. If you want to test out your setup in advance, let me know. I have a defective reel from this release which would at least let you test various lens/plate/masking combinations.  |  IP: Logged Mitchell Dvoskin Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1869 From: West Milford, NJ, USA Registered: Jan 2001 posted 02-18-2005 10:25 AM                     Interesting idea, Scott. I may give that a try, to see how it looks. My concern is these prints are rumored to be less than sharp, so the smaller picture mighn't actually look better in the long run. Stephen, yes, it was Oz were some full frame IB Tech prints were struck.  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 02-18-2005 12:32 PM                        We ran GWTW during the re-release a few years back and we went to great trouble to hang extra masking on our screen so the picture would be properly masked. I thought sure we'd get endless questions about all that black cloth down there, but not one person said a thing.  |  IP: Logged Tim Reed Better Projection Pays Posts: 5246 From: Northampton, PA Registered: Sep 1999 posted 02-19-2005 09:13 PM                       Mitchell, how far is your theatre from the Vince Lombardi service area on the Jersey Tpke?  |  IP: Logged Mitchell Dvoskin Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1869 From: West Milford, NJ, USA Registered: Jan 2001 posted 02-20-2005 01:38 AM                     how far is your theatre from the Vince Lombardi service area on the Jersey Tpke? Under 10 miles.  |  IP: Logged Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 02-20-2005 01:54 AM                     quote: Scott Norwood to use the regular 1.33 backup lenses I wanted to do this as well - use 1.33 with a shorter focus length backups for the scope lens, but we had the mini Schnieders anamorphics and had no access to a good ol' B&H Cinemascope attachment I or II to enlarge that picture to fit a flat screen. -Monte  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 02-20-2005 08:26 AM                     I remember reading years ago in a book about GWTW that it actually had its own aspect ratio. Due in part because process shots had to be offset to match picture film. This resulted in slight top to bottom cropping. This slight sropping was evedent on my 1950's release print. Mark  |  IP: Logged Jeffry L. Johnson Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 809 From: Cleveland, Ohio, USA Registered: Apr 2000 posted 02-20-2005 10:14 AM                        Those process shots were inserted into the original negative for GWTW's widescreen 1.66:1 reissue in 1954. The original 1.37:1 elements no longer exist.  |  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.