Film-Tech Cinema Systems
Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE


  
my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » 10-12 footlamberts (Page 1)

 
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2 
 
Author Topic: 10-12 footlamberts
Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99


 - posted 11-12-1999 03:50 AM      Profile for Brad Miller   Author's Homepage   Email Brad Miller       Edit/Delete Post 
Seems someone listened to Gordon's recommendation as the prints of Messenger are to be projected between 10-12 footlamberts.

What does everyone think of the projected image? Did anyone who normally ran 16 footlamberts actually lower their lamphouse output to meet the 10-12 footlambert spec?

 |  IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

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


 - posted 11-12-1999 06:57 AM      Profile for John Pytlak   Author's Homepage   Email John Pytlak   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Standard SMPTE 196M specifies an aim of 16 footlamberts, with an allowed range of 12 to 22 footlamberts for theatres. Almost all prints are timed by the laboratory in accordance with this standard, and should ideally be projected at 16 footlamberts. The contrast aims of the film stocks are based on prints being shown at the 16 footlambert aim.

If the distributor timed the prints lighter in hopes of compensating for theatres that had dim screens, they compromised the overall quality of the image. Making a print lighter will tend to compress the highlight detail, wash out the flesh tones, and make the blacks more "smoky". But since they accepted the "look" of the prints that way, and are recommending a lower luminance for showing them, I would comply with their request. But be sure to return to the standard 16fL luminance after the run.

To show why this philosophy is flawed, imagine taking the practice to the extreme. If theatres have dim screens, why not make the prints REALLY light? If you do, the film will be clear and have no image!

------------------
John Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Professional Motion Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
Eastman Kodak Company
Rochester, NY 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Fax: 716-722-7243


 |  IP: Logged

John Walsh
Film God

Posts: 2490
From: Connecticut, USA, Earth, Milky Way
Registered: Oct 1999


 - posted 11-12-1999 10:50 AM      Profile for John Walsh   Email John Walsh   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I really hate to sound like a cynic (and maybe like a pain in the ass, too) but I just can't see 99% of theaters adjusting the lamp to match the recommened fL for one film. IMSO (in my sarcastic opinion) most theaters can't even get 10fL if they wanted to. Sorry to rant, but not only do I feel this is the most prevalent single problem in theaters, but is ignored by owners and equipment installers.

Theater owner: I need 20 consoles for my new theater complex. I want the best light on the screen I can get. All of them are 18ft x 45ft.

Equipment supplier: "Well, our "BlastLight 5000W" seems about right. That'll be $1800 each."

Theater owner: "At DarkStar supply, they told me that the Cataract 2000W's would work. It's $750 cheaper. See ya later....."

Equipment supplier: "Wait! I can supply the TotalEclipse 2000W's," (sigh) "for the same price."

Theater owner: "How good are they?"

Equipment supplier: "Well, they aren't as bright as....."

Theater owner: "Well, if they're no good..." (starts dialing cell phone.)

Equipment supplier: "I meant, uhm.. ah.. the PAINT on the outside is not as bright, yeah, that's what I meant..."

Theater owner: (Hangs up cell phone, but doesn't put it away.) "So I really don't need 5000 watts?"

Equipment supplier: (Eyes are on phone) "No, you don't really need it."

Theater owner: "OK then." (puts phone in pocket.) "Trying to up sell me, eh? Ha-ha, well, I'm an expert at that. So how good are these lamps?"

Equipment supplier: (Sighs) "Very good." (theater owner reaches towards pocket) "I meant to say, 'the best you can get.'"

Theater owner: "Good, that's what I want to brag to other owners at NATO. Give me some free logo T-shirts and baseball caps, too. Those consoles come with the bulbs, right?"

It also doesn't help that you need a $2200 meter to read brightness. When you can't get your boss to buy good quality splicing tape, how are you going to get a meter? Unless someone comes up with a cheaper way of mesuring reflected light, few people will even know how bad off they are.

SO THERE!
.....i feel better now.....

 |  IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99


 - posted 11-12-1999 02:46 PM      Profile for Brad Miller   Author's Homepage   Email Brad Miller       Edit/Delete Post 
Comical post...but all too true, John. I think you are correct that if 1 in 100 theatres actually adjust their lamp output to meet this temporary spec, the director will be lucky!

I haven't screened this film, but will make a point to check it. It is playing in an auditorium with an 80 foot screen and a 4.5K lamp, which can only get 12fl anyway...so that was easy. Once it moves to a smaller house though, 16fl is effortless to achieve on scope! That's when the timing will really show up if the bulb isn't defocused a bit.

 |  IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999


 - posted 11-12-1999 03:10 PM      Profile for Steve Guttag   Email Steve Guttag   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Excellent Post!!! It is often too true. Especially the one about the other dealer that ALWAYS has a cheaper alternative that they have put in 1000s of theatres with "no complaints."

Hey with a 12fL requirement, most theatres should be about right...it is the 16fL that they have problems with!

Steve

 |  IP: Logged

Randy Stankey
Film God

Posts: 6539
From: Erie, Pennsylvania
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 11-12-1999 03:37 PM      Profile for Randy Stankey   Email Randy Stankey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I'm not adjusting our lamphouses. No way! CFS's are a pain to adjust. On top of that, the print is going to move in two weeks and then the week after that, etc. etc.... Adjusting the output up and down on several projectors would be crazy even IF i had time to do it!

Even if I had something like the Stong P.S. I STILL wouldn't do it. It's silly!

 |  IP: Logged

Christopher Seo
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 530
From: Los Angeles, CA
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 11-12-1999 04:47 PM      Profile for Christopher Seo   Email Christopher Seo   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Regarding the measurement of screen brightness... does anyone know if light meters used in photography can be adapted to fit the bill? I know there are two different kinds of measures, one for incident and one for reflected light... can one of these be used?

 |  IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999


 - posted 11-12-1999 06:17 PM      Profile for Steve Guttag   Email Steve Guttag   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
You have actually answered your own question, no a photography light meter won't do it becuase it will read in foot-candles. Furthermore it's sensor is designed for light to fall upon it rather than focus it's sensor onto a specific part of the screen. Now if you use you meter in conjunction with a light meter you can measure screen gain!

Steve

 |  IP: Logged

Gordon McLeod
Film God

Posts: 9532
From: Toronto Ontario Canada
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 11-12-1999 06:48 PM      Profile for Gordon McLeod   Email Gordon McLeod   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
actually most spotmeters can read footlamberts but must be recalibrated to alow for the ballistic action of the shutter
Pentax is a favorite to get converted

 |  IP: Logged

Ken Layton
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1452
From: Olympia, Wash. USA
Registered: Sep 1999


 - posted 11-13-1999 01:58 AM      Profile for Ken Layton   Email Ken Layton   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
The manual for the Strong "Utility" carbon arc states it can put out 20 foot lamberts on an 18 foot wide screen.

 |  IP: Logged

John Walsh
Film God

Posts: 2490
From: Connecticut, USA, Earth, Milky Way
Registered: Oct 1999


 - posted 11-13-1999 01:54 PM      Profile for John Walsh   Email John Walsh   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Yeah, but I think that's just a hyped-up claim. There are other factors besides screen size which effect the final brightness. It's like cars in the '60's; back then, listed engine horsepower was on a dynamometer; today it's at the wheeles with all accys. on and running.
Not that a Strong was a POS, but that everybody hyped their spec's.

 |  IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

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


 - posted 11-23-1999 10:32 AM      Profile for John Pytlak   Author's Homepage   Email John Pytlak   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Based on Strong's "Lens Selector and Picture Size Computer", figure about 5 watts per square foot of screen area (2.39:1 scope format) to adequately light a 1.0 gain matte white screen. So a 1000 square-foot matte screen will need at least 5000 watts.

With a 1.5 gain curved screen, figure about 4 watts per square foot. And about 3 watts per square foot for a 1.7 gain curved screen.

Obviously this assumes normal efficiencies for the lamphouse, shutter and optics. Any misalignment, dirty screen, three-blade shutter, etc. will require much more power. The effective f/stop of the projection lens is also an important factor, with a wider lens opening offering greater light efficiency, at the expense of depth of focus.

BTW, a 1000-square foot screen is 20.5 X 49 feet for the 2.39:1 scope format.

------------------
John Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Professional Motion Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
Eastman Kodak Company
Rochester, NY 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Fax: 716-722-7243


 |  IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

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


 - posted 11-23-1999 10:53 AM      Profile for John Pytlak   Author's Homepage   Email John Pytlak   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Just an addendum for our friends outside of the USA that use the metric system:

For a 1.0 gain matte white screen, figure about 54 watts per square metre of screen area. So a 100 square metre (6.5 X 15.5 metres) matte white screen needs at least 5400 watts, so a 6000-watt xenon bulb is the smallest that will do the job.

Use at least 43 watts per square metre for a 1.5 gain curved screen.

Use at least 34 watts per square metre for a 1.7 gain curved screen.

Again, these "rules of thumb" are based on the Strong/IscoOptic "Lens Selector and Picture Size Comparator".

------------------
John Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Professional Motion Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
Eastman Kodak Company
Rochester, NY 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Fax: 716-722-7243


 |  IP: Logged

John Walsh
Film God

Posts: 2490
From: Connecticut, USA, Earth, Milky Way
Registered: Oct 1999


 - posted 11-23-1999 02:31 PM      Profile for John Walsh   Email John Walsh   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I always used:

Height of screen squared, times 12

exp: 20.5 ft screen sq = 420.25
times 12 = 5049 watts

Which is the same, but JP's formula is better, because you can account for gain screens (which our theater company dislikes, so we don't have to worry about it.)

 |  IP: Logged

Bill Purdy
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 139
From: Seattle, WA
Registered: Oct 1999


 - posted 11-29-1999 04:06 PM      Profile for Bill Purdy   Author's Homepage   Email Bill Purdy   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Returning to the question of how you can measure the brightness, I offer a suggestion. Back in the early 80's when the THX program was beginning, they still hired outside technicians (not employees of the theatre) for the re-certifications and the TAP checks. We had the problem that there were no good meters available unless you found an old Spectra or the like. In my case, I bought a used Soligor spot meter which came with a handy chart for converting the EV readings into Ft. Lamberts. It was a little tricky because the part of the scale of interest to me was very compressed. After taking a reading I had to consult the little chart taped to the side of the meter, but it worked. When Spectra brought out their new model I was pleased to discover that my old one method was really quite accurate. The key is that you use a spot meter which is calibrated in EV.


 |  IP: Logged



All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2 
 
   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic    next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:



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.

© 1999-2020 Film-Tech Cinema Systems, LLC. All rights reserved.