Ultrasonic lab splices are unfortunately an economic "fact of life". Splices that are unreliable, discolored, or not on the frameline should be properly remade during make-up. Having the labs or a third party remaking splices would drive up print costs significantly, and add an extra handling stage. Inspection projection itself can sometimes cause damage.

BTW, I've heard that return rates for defective reels are well under 1% (one percent) at most labs. Small comfort when you find a problem reel late Thursday night, before a busy weekend.

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Eastman Kodak Company
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com

I do think lab spliced are not a TAP - controlled item. As JP said, we'll just have to learn to live with them.

I agree that many minor print problems could be better addressed by projectionists if they received prints in time to do a thorough inspection, repair lab splices, etc. And if a reel was defective, get a replacement in plenty of time for the opening.

Both the SMPTE P3 Projection Technology Committee and the Inter-Society Committee for the Enhancement of Theatrical Presentation will be meeting at ShowEast in Orlando this October. I will bring up the advantages of shipping the prints so they arrive at theatres a few days (not hours) in advance of the first show, and see if anything can be done, especially by the Inter-Society, which is supported by NATO and the Distributors.

There may be issues that we are not aware of that mandate "just in time" shipping by the exchanges, including piracy control, air freight schedules, union work agreements, etc. But I think it's worth trying.

Just as a "reality check", what percentage of reels have Film-Tech participants required immediate replacements for, due to lab or stock problems? Look over your print logs for the last few months, and calculate how many NEW reels you've received, and how many of them needed to be immediately replaced. Is it indeed less than 1 in 100?

Please do NOT include damage from previous showings (used prints), or minor problems like having to remake lab splices. We're only counting NEW reels that have to be replaced, which is what the labs and distributors keep track of.

 |  IP: Logged

A quick search of all the postings on this site did not find any major print problems being reported for "Perfect Storm", so your report is the first. What specific issues do you attribute to the lab? Many times, with an effects-laden picture (especially CGI), it's difficult to identify the source of any image quality problem, since there are so many elements and so many labs/effects houses involved.

I think that the return rates are so low because many theatres don't even screen prints. Others just don't care enough to get replacements. Those of us who do request replacements are making up the percentage for the entire country, which is why it is so low.

 |  IP: Logged

Here is what Scott Norwood said regarding "Perfect Storm":

"the garden-variety 35mm release print that I saw of this film was not very good.
The film was shot in super-35, and the release prints were grainy and had timing problems." He goes on to say that the color consistency and tone scale in the DLP presentation was even worse.

First, let me clarify that cinematographer John Seale "opted to shoot anamorphic rather than Super 35 because (he) felt the quality improvement was a significant advantage for this film." (American Cinematographer, July 2000, page 58). Filmed effects were shot on 8-perf VistaVision. Lucasfilm's Industrial Light and Magic(ILM)did most of the effects and CGI. So the film has good credentials.

As you know, the scene-to-scene timing is approved at the answer print stage, so the "timing problems" reflected the artistic decision of the timer, cinematographer and director. We may argue with the color decisions, but it was theirs' to make. A release print lab can be held responsible for reel-to-reel color variations, but not the scene-to-scene color timing from an approved answer print.

Scott's comment about "grainy" may be explained by the American Cinematographer article: "To help a bit with emulsion speed, Seale force-processed the SFX 200 one stop, rating it 320 ISO." Generally, this enhances the grain structure of the film. Again, this was an artistic decision, and one driven by the need to light huge sets to get the desired T4.5 lens opening.

So, in this case, the "look" of the film was likely what was approved, and is not a "lab problem".

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Eastman Kodak Company
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com

What were the specific lab problems that caused you to request 5 replacement reels? At least two labs are involved with those three pictures.

Each print of 'Space Cowboys' had one reel that had black splotching on the soundtrack side of the print.

One of the prints of 'Hollow Man' had medium sizeds white dots running down the right side of the screen for 3 reels. Have never seen this before.