Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Pan and Scan 'Painted Veil'

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Film Handlers' Forum » Pan and Scan 'Painted Veil' (Page 1)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

Author

Topic: Pan and Scan 'Painted Veil'

Amanda Mundin
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 122
From: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Registered: Sep 2005

posted 05-16-2007 11:42 AM

Just uploaded a digital version of 'The Painted Veil' which starts on Friday onto our QuVis server, in which the aspect ratio is 1.78:1. In phoning the distributor it seems that although the 35mm prints are scope, that when they aquired the digital version from the states they could only get a 1.78:1 digital version and not a scope version for some reason, and there are no 35mm prints available to us at this late stage. The people that made the hard drive copy suggest it is a Pan & Scan version of the original scope image. It's one thing watching a Pan & Scan version on TV but to be sending Pan & Scan versions to cinemas seems shit to say the least.

| IP: Logged

Stephen Furley
Film God

Posts: 3059
From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England
Registered: May 2002

posted 05-16-2007 12:11 PM

I haven't heard anything about this, but we're opening it on Friday as well, so I'll try to find out tomorrow what we've been sent. It hadn't arrived yesterday. I'll be running it on Saturday.

| IP: Logged

Dick Vaughan
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1032
From: Bradford, West Yorkshire, UK
Registered: Jul 2000

posted 05-16-2007 03:19 PM

Amanda we hsd exactly the same experience last week. Sadly I didn't get chance to post about it earlier.

Bummer [thumbsdown]

| IP: Logged

Caleb Johnstone-Cowan
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 593
From: London, UK
Registered: Mar 2006

posted 05-16-2007 05:29 PM

That's ridiculous, you should refuse to show it until a 35mm scope print becomes available. Massive balls up by the distributors, surely a secure network connection would get a good copy over here in a day or so?

| IP: Logged

Hugh McCullough
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 147
From: Old Coulsdon, Surrey, UK
Registered: Jan 2003

posted 05-16-2007 06:11 PM

I showed this film about two weeks ago.
I was told that no digital copies were available at that time, and received a 35mm scope print.
Ten minutes after making it up a digital copy arrived.
I loaded (ingested) it onto the dorami server, and tried a rehearsal in scope.
A lovely wedge shaped picture appeared on the screen.
Then I tried 1.78:1 and it appeared to fit W/S perfectly.
Unfortunately I was unable to view the film in digital as I had to go and work at another cinema, and show Painted Veil in 35mm

A few weeks ago I was showing 'Curse of the Golden Flower' in digital,
and the BBFC was OK, but got onto the trademark, and the picture went a beautiful red on the left hand side.
Had to turn everything off, and reboot.

Remember that digital is good. Digital is troublefree, or so we are told.

| IP: Logged

Cameron Glendinning
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 845
From: West Ryde, Sydney, NSW Australia
Registered: Dec 2005

posted 05-16-2007 07:07 PM

Any chance it was shot super 35 and they are simply using the extra image top and bottom?

| IP: Logged

Ron Curran
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 504
From: Springwood NSW Australia
Registered: Feb 2006

posted 05-16-2007 08:00 PM

The director and dp would have composed these films for 2.35, whether they shot Super 35 or 4-perf anamorphic.

We are being offered several Scope-shot titles on 16x9 files. So we are waiting (and waiting) for a 35mm prints to become available.

This digital blackmail is being reinforced by the Dolby Digital soundtrack being unplayable on used prints and the non-supply of DTS discs. Take it in digital or wait and hope.

| IP: Logged

Cameron Glendinning
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 845
From: West Ryde, Sydney, NSW Australia
Registered: Dec 2005

posted 05-17-2007 01:07 AM

quote: Ron Curran
The director and dp would have composed these films for 2.35, whether they shot Super 35 or 4-perf anamorphic.

Unless your the director that a hard call to make. The super 35mm production I worked on was duel composed for 1.33 and 16.9 but was only ever seen once in 1.85 for a hollywood opening publicity media screening. TV version was 1.33 and a 35mm print was stored for a future telecine as a future proof.

| IP: Logged

Tim Asten
Film Handler

Posts: 98
From: Brighton, United Kingdom
Registered: Nov 2006

posted 05-18-2007 05:54 AM

We have been running the 35mm Scope version of this film for the last 2 weeks, however last night we had an email to send back the print in exchange for the w/s digital copy [Confused]

. Before we had to send the print back which was still playing we loaded up the Christie CP2000 in the adjacent screen (which was between houses) to where the 35mm copy was playing, then we fast forwarded the digital copy till it caught up with the 35mm to see what the differences were side by side. Well it is indeed a pan & scan version with subtle side information missing. The picture though was nice and clear and after watching it for about ten minutes you probably would'nt have gathered that it was meant to be scope if you did'nt already know otherwise. But it still begs the question why was the digital copy in w/s?

| IP: Logged

Christian Appelt
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 505
From: Frankfurt, Germany
Registered: Dec 2001

posted 05-18-2007 11:20 AM

Please note this thread from cinematography.com:
cinematography.com: "Warning - Painted Veil Digital Version"

Cinematographer Adam Frisch wrote to Odeon cinemas complaining about the format and got this answer (quoted from thread above):

quote:
We had a number of pre-release screenings on 35mm and were fully aware that the film was 1:2.40 aspect ratio. After our last pre-release screening we were instructed by Momentum Pictures to send back the 35mm print, as they would be supplying us with a digital copy. On Thursday 26th we received a hard drive with instructions that we were to screen the movie in 1:1.78. On noticing this our projectionist immediately informed Arts Alliance (the company Momentum used to master the movie for our digital servers) who told him that they themselves had informed Momentum and were told by them that this was how they wanted it (our projectionist, like yourself did not agree with this). After viewing the film on Friday night, and confirming that it was a pan and scan version we contacted Momentum and requested a 35mm copy so that it could be shown in its correct ratio. We were told by them that due to being part of the UK Film Council's Digital Screen Network we were contractually obliged to show the movie in the digital format.

So there are some 35mm prints in the correct format, but theatres are contractually obliged to play a digital version with "castrated" aspect ratio? - Very strange indeed!

| IP: Logged

Stephen Furley
Film God

Posts: 3059
From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England
Registered: May 2002

posted 05-18-2007 12:50 PM

I popped into the cinema on the way home to spool up the first couple of reels of 'Asterix and the Vikings' for tomorrow morning, and the projectionist on duty confirmed that our copy is 1:1.78.

Under a pile of boxes of trailers was a 400 foot metal can, from the BFI with a pleasant surprise, a brand new print of Len Lye's 'Colourbox', to be shown before one of the features coming up soon. However, the can is labeled 1.85, and the covering letter from the BFI says something like 'as it is a different ratio to the feature, which is 2.39, you should splice it on to the end of yur adverts reel'. Sounds like it might be that silly 1.37 within 1.85 format, which would be a pity.

We do try to show films properly, but distributors don't always make it easy.

I'm going to try to run 'Colourbox tomorrow to have a look at it.

| IP: Logged

Ramon Lamarca Marques
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 186
From: Edgware, England, UK
Registered: Feb 2006

posted 05-18-2007 01:48 PM

I have read that it has got active pan and scan. It is dreadful to think that anyone related to the world of arts could allow something like this to happen. But video people have always loved pan and scan anyway.

From now on I will make sure that I check with the cinema if they are showing a 35mm or a digital file since it looks that digital files allow distributors to participate in the "creative process" and I am frankly not interested in their input at all.

| IP: Logged

John Hawkinson
Film God

Posts: 2273
From: Cambridge, MA, USA
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 05-18-2007 04:17 PM

So, does no one know who to contact to find out the real story with this? Presumably somebody should talk to the prints department (or whatever) at WIP or Bob Yari Productions and find out what actually happened?

Is this purely a UK issue?

--jhawk

| IP: Logged

Caleb Johnstone-Cowan
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 593
From: London, UK
Registered: Mar 2006

posted 05-18-2007 06:32 PM

We have 'Colourbox' playing in digital in front of 'My Best Friend', it is so interesting and visually stunning. It is 1.37 within a 1.85 format on digital, first time I've ever seen a scope change on a DLP.

Like I said above, refuse to show it, since Momentum will lose out on the gross from your cinema and the word-of-mouth for the DVD release. There are other films doing better, like The Lives of Others, that you could show on digital. Distributors shouldn't be using pan and scan.

| IP: Logged

Stephen Furley
Film God

Posts: 3059
From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England
Registered: May 2002

posted 05-18-2007 06:51 PM

quote: Caleb Johnstone-Cowan
We have 'Colourbox' playing in digital in front of 'My Best Friend', it is so interesting and visually stunning. It is 1.37 within a 1.85 format on digital, first time I've ever seen a scope change on a DLP.

Yes, 'My Best Friend' that was the film it is to be shown with; I think it's early next month sometime. I don't know whether it will be on film or digital, but 'Colourbox' is on film. What is 'My Best Friend' about, and why is 'Colourbox' being shown with it? 1.37 within 1.85 makes sense with digital, but 1.37 within 1.85, within 1.37 on film makes no sense at all.

I have a feeling that 'Colourbox' was printed in Gasparcolor when first released, but I'm not absoultly certain. This was a silver dye bleach process, in some ways similar to the Cibachrome process for printing from slides, but it was actually printed from separations, and it produced very strong, intense colours.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

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.