|  IP: Logged

How much tolerance should the projectionist be allowed? My instinct is to say the initial responsibility is on the film maker. From there, obvious framing errors should be prevented.

 |  IP: Logged

 |  IP: Logged

 |  IP: Logged

 |  IP: Logged

 |  IP: Logged

Usually cheaper and easier to reshoot the take if they suspect the framing was violated.

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: +1 585 477 5325 Cell: +1 585 781 4036 Fax: +1 585 722 7243
e-mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

 |  IP: Logged

quote:

---

Over at www.nitpickers.com there is a debate over boom mikes

---

That site's got the right name, and how! What gets me about these "blooper spotters", is they complain about things that happen purely as a result of the filmmaking process. Things like clouds in different patterns from shot to shot, shadows that don't fall in the same spot on the ground, and minute changes in background action.

They also complain about practical considerations and elements key to the suspension of disbelief. I remember one that read something like, "when the girl threw that encyclopedia at the guy, if you look on the side of the bookshelf, she really missed him, but he acted like he was hit." So, evidently, I guess if they don't really kill people in the movies, it's a mistake? This kind of nonsense is often listed on IMDB as "goofs".

I can well imagine the "nit pickers" think they've hit the motherlode when they see things in a 1.85:1 movie shown on TV. One I've seen incorrectly listed as a mistake (as far as the feature is concerned) is from "Smokey and the Bandit". Jackie Gleason's gun and holster disappears in a closeup. The thing these folks don't realize is this is well outside of the 1.85:1 action safe area (it's almost off the TV screen, too, for that matter). It was completely unnoticeable in the theatre.

So, with this in mind, Michael, I would have to vote NO; a mic in the frame is NOT a "mistake", if it's obviously outside the area that was intended to be shown. Projection misframes are isolated incidents and a cinematographer should be deemed safe outside the "safe" areas.

------------------
Better Projection Pays!

How many movies are there where a guy/girl is SUPPOSEDLY naked in a shower scene but if you frame down, out of the safe area, you find that the actor is wearing a bathing suit or something?

On the other hand, you don't often hear anybody complain about when movies are transfered to video that parts of the picture are cut off. For instance, "Blues Brothers". The two cops sitting in their cruiser behind the bill board... Because of the difference in framing, you can't see all of the words, "See you next Wednesday" printed on the board. This is a shame because this is a trademark of Landis' films.

I think these guys have to learn the difference between aspect ratios, what constitutes a safe area violation and what constitutes a framing error.

IIRC, this was filmed in 1.66:1, but most theaters project it at 1.85:1. If you watch the Home Video version as the couple are leaving the chapel, right as they walk out the door at the very top of the frame you see what looks like an obvious boom mic. Many have reported this as such, but as the camera follows the couple and a wider shot of the chapel is in the background, you see it's just a light fixture over the door that indeed looks like a boom mic!

IMHO, in this day and age of popcornjectionists, all 1.85 releases should be hard-matted.