Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Trailers for "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Film Handlers' Forum » Trailers for "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" (Page 1)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Author

Topic: Trailers for "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"

David Stambaugh
Film God

Posts: 4021
From: Eugene, Oregon
Registered: Jan 2002

posted 04-17-2005 05:41 PM

Has anyone besides me noticed that the trailers for "Hitchhiker's Guide" stand out as being exceedingly sharp and detailed? I've seen 2 different versions of the trailer, at 2 different theaters, and both times I thought they looked WAY better than any other trailers or even the feature. It's almost like the difference between SD and HD. The obvious question is why doesn't 35mm *always* look that good.

| IP: Logged

Adam Wilbert
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 590
From: Bellingham, WA, USA
Registered: Mar 2002

posted 04-18-2005 01:27 PM

42... 'nuff said, I think. [Big Grin]

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000

posted 04-19-2005 10:53 AM

quote: Adam Wilbert
42... 'nuff said, I think.

Really long link

quote:
For the laboratory, VISION Color Intermediate Film (2242) enable the production of printing elements that are closer in quality to the look of a print made directly from the original negative.

Postproduction facilities will appreciate the features of the VISION Color Intermediate Films (2242), especially improved sharpness for digital output. They're the choice for production of masters for theatrical re-release, video and DVD release, satellite, cable or broadcast TV presentation - or use in any media of the future.

And, audiences will also see the difference - in movies that tell stories with fewer distractions, films with fewer physical imperfections.

[ 04-19-2005, 01:37 PM: Message edited by: Adam Martin ]

| IP: Logged

David Stambaugh
Film God

Posts: 4021
From: Eugene, Oregon
Registered: Jan 2002

posted 04-19-2005 01:31 PM

The difference in image quality between these trailers and almost everything else that was running on either side of it was VERY apparent. It wasn't like I was looking for it either -- it just jumped out. [thumbsup]

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000

posted 04-19-2005 01:34 PM

Maybe the 2242 duplicate negatives were recorded directly from a 4K Digital Intermediate?

| IP: Logged

Larry Myers
Master Film Handler

Posts: 371
From: Herndon, VA, USA
Registered: Jan 2001

posted 04-19-2005 02:52 PM

Hi

There was a big feature on Time last year about trailers. They called them more or less bait and switch. Meaning, the trailers are far better in quality and interest then the movie itself.

One reason is the use of a special production crew just to do trailers. This means hand selected cameras, special takes that don't make it into the movie, processing in separate labs with high quality standards, slow speed printing right off the negative, high paid techs that handle the film. So on and so on.

Larry

| IP: Logged

Adam Wilbert
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 590
From: Bellingham, WA, USA
Registered: Mar 2002

posted 04-19-2005 03:19 PM

hold on a tic,

am I seeing a corrolation between the vision stock codes and the Hitchiker's answer to the ultimate question of Life, the Universe and Everything? Interesting!

quote: kodak
KODAK VISION Color Intermediate Film
5242 / 7242 / 2242 / 3242

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000

posted 04-19-2005 04:21 PM

Kodak has had the answer to the ultimate question for many years! It used to be a camera reversal film used for newsgathering (7242), and now it is Intermediate: "42". [thumbsup]

| IP: Logged

Phil Hill
I love my cootie bug

Posts: 7595
From: Hollywood, CA USA
Registered: Mar 2000

posted 04-19-2005 05:13 PM

7242? Holy smokes, I thought that was discontinued years ago and replaced by VNF stock?

Are the specs the same as the original camera reversal stock? (ME-4?)

I would have thought they would use something like 5252/7252 before 5242/7242 or even my favorite reversal 5256/7256.

| IP: Logged

Dominic Case
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 131
From: Sydney NSW Australia
Registered: Aug 2003

posted 04-19-2005 09:45 PM

quote: Phil Hill
7242? Holy smokes, I thought that was discontinued years ago

So it was, Phil, as were all the other stocks you mentioned.

7242 is now the number for one of the family of intermediate stocks, for making IPs and DN (dupe negs).
2242 = 35mm polyester base
3242 = 16mm polyester base
5242 = 35mm acetate base
7242 = 16mm atetate base

But this has been around for a few years now. DOn't see why it should make so much difference, unless it's the postproduction method of making the trailer. Many are now edited in HD (not even digital 2K) and transferred back to film: perhaps this one was done the proper way: but even then it shouldn't look any different from the feature.

I guess only some of us picked Adam's "42" reference. You either get Hitchhiker jokes or you don't.

Don't Panic.

| IP: Logged

Phil Hill
I love my cootie bug

Posts: 7595
From: Hollywood, CA USA
Registered: Mar 2000

posted 04-19-2005 10:13 PM

Dominic, sorry for being my usual dumbass self here, but I'm totally confused.

Is there now a NEW Intermediate stock using the OLD designation of 7242 that is different than the original Ektachrome reversal camera stock or is it still in production but with a new "purpose"?

| IP: Logged

David Stambaugh
Film God

Posts: 4021
From: Eugene, Oregon
Registered: Jan 2002

posted 04-19-2005 10:19 PM

Wish someone could take a critical look at one of these trailers and see if you corroborate my observation, or tell me I'm full of [bs]

| IP: Logged

Darryl Spicer
Film God

Posts: 3250
From: Lexington, KY, USA
Registered: Dec 2000

posted 04-19-2005 10:50 PM

I noticed that the trailers for the Herbie movie were very sharp.

| IP: Logged

Brian Michael Weidemann
Expert cat molester

Posts: 944
From: Costa Mesa, CA United States
Registered: Feb 2004

posted 04-20-2005 05:43 AM

Herbie is "53". It doesn't work. [Razz]

It's all about "42" [Wink]

The only Hitchhiker's trailer I've really watched is the DLP one on our Sin City, so its crispness or lack thereof is due to completely different reasons, I would imagine. Impressive, nonetheless, though.

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000

posted 04-20-2005 12:44 PM

Phil:

Kodak recycles the numbers that designate film type (those four digit numbers are used on all product lines, and only about a hundred are unique to motion picture films).

Here is a link to the Chronology of Kodak Motion Picture Films, citing the 7242 you remember from your work in television:

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/about/chrono3.shtml

quote:
1966: KODAK EKTACHROME EF film, 7242. Tungsten, EI 125. Process ME-4. Replaced 7258. Discontinued 1986.

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/about/chrono4.shtml

quote:
2001: KODAK VISION Color Intermediate Film 5242 / 2242 - Replacement for 5244 / 2244

2242 is coated on a new Kodak ESTAR base that has a conductive antistat and scratch-resistant coatings, similar to VISION Color Print Film, and just recently won a Science and Engineering Award from the Academy:

http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/news/filmTech.shtml

2003 Academy Awards

quote:
To KENNETH L. TINGLER, CHARLES C. ANDERSON, DIANE E. KESTNER and BRIAN A. SCHELL of the Eastman Kodak Company for the successful development of a process-surviving antistatic layer technology for motion picture film. This technology successfully controls the static charge buildup on processed intermediate and sound negative films during high speed printing operations. [Laboratory]

So Kodak has had the Hitchiker's answer to the ultimate question of Life, the Universe and Everything for many years: "42". [Cool]

I haven't seen the trailer on a big screen yet, but I suspect the printing negative may have been a direct output from a 4K Digital Intermediate. The difference between 2K and 4K is usually obvious on a 35mm film projected on a big screen, and 4K begins to approach direct print quality.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Printer-friendly view of this topic

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.