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   » Horizontal line (Page 1)

 
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2 
 
Author Topic: Horizontal line
Michael Brown
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1522
From: Bradford, England
Registered: May 2001


 - posted 06-17-2001 11:28 AM      Profile for Michael Brown   Email Michael Brown   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Okay, this happened last night at the cinema I spoke about in the post below.

I was watching Along came a Spider (Scope) and noticed that whenever there was a cut a black horizontal line would flash up across the length of the bottom of the screen. It was as if the frame line was "jumping up" eact time there was a cut in the image.

If anybody has any ideas, it was unusuall.

------------------
------------------
Michael Brown
Bradford Student Cinema
www.bradfordstudentcinema.co.uk

 |  IP: Logged

Darryl Spicer
Film God

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


 - posted 06-17-2001 11:44 AM      Profile for Darryl Spicer     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
If I read your post correctly you just witnessed a negative splice for each scene or shot. When a scope film such as this one is framed properly you should not see these negative splices. Basically it is the splice made during the editing process that the negative cutter makes to the final negative.

 |  IP: Logged

Gordon McLeod
Film God

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


 - posted 06-17-2001 12:04 PM      Profile for Gordon McLeod   Email Gordon McLeod   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
It may not be that they are framing incorrectly as they may have appertures cut to old standards remember originally scope was 710 high then 700 and now 690 to eliminate the wider splices highspeed printing requires

 |  IP: Logged

Leo Enticknap
Film God

Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000


 - posted 06-18-2001 06:52 AM      Profile for Leo Enticknap   Author's Homepage   Email Leo Enticknap   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
If it were a neg splice, then surely the horizontal line would be white, not black? As in...

cut camera negative (splice forms opaque line)

THEN

fine grain pos (negative image of splice shows as clear line)

THEN

dupe neg (reversed, i.e. opaque again)

THEN

release print (reversed, i.e. clear again).

So if a neg splice were showing, I'd expect to see a white flash rather than a black line. But as it happened on every cut, I guess it can't be a lab join. So was this production shot on reversal stock or am I missing something?

 |  IP: Logged

Michael Barry
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 584
From: Sydney, NSW, Australia
Registered: Nov 1999


 - posted 06-18-2001 12:26 PM      Profile for Michael Barry   Email Michael Barry   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Gordon (or others): Does the latest RP-40/PA-35 film have 2.39:1 or 2.35:1 indicated on it? ie. if you cut apertures exactly to it for scope, will you see edit flashes?

 |  IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

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


 - posted 06-20-2001 10:31 AM      Profile for John Pytlak   Author's Homepage   Email John Pytlak   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
The "flashes" at scene changes are likely the negative splices. SMPTE Recommended Practice RP 111 specifies the dimensions of the splices, including the overlap. The cement negative splicers developed for the original "CinemaScope" format had a very narrow overlap so as not to show on the projected image. But the narrow overlap was less reliable, leading to the use of splicers having more overlap but more risk of the splice being seen. Because of this, the anamorphic image height has been reduced from 0.715 to 0.700 to 0.690 inches over time. Yet some splicers (or splicing techniques) produce negative splices tha still may project with the current 0.825 x 0.690 inch anamorphic image area, unless perfectly framed.

Here is the history I provided to Marty Hart's American Widescreen Museum website:

_____________________________________________________________________
From 1957 through today, there have been a number of small changes to the anamorphic projector aperture recommended standards.
John P. Pytlak of Eastman Kodak dug through countless back issues of the SMPTE Journal in order to provide the following chronology
of the changes to the standards:

The March 1957 SMPTE Journal has PH22.104-1957, the standard for 2.55:1 anamorphic (no optical track), with an aperture size of
0.912 X 0.715 inches. Notice of withdrawal of this standard was in the January 1964 Journal.

The December 1957 SMPTE Journal has PH22.106-1957 for 2.35:1 anamorphic, with an aperture of 0.839 X 0.715 inches. It was
unchanged in the September 1964 Journal. The November 1965 SMPTE Journal published PH22.106-1965 still with the 0.839 X 0.715
aperture size.

In the September 1970 SMPTE Journal, a new draft of PH22.106 was proposed, with an aperture size of 0.838 X 0.700 inches, to
minimize the flashes at splices. This was republished as standard PH22.106-1971 in the October 1971 issue.

In the June 1976 SMPTE Journal, the two (flat and scope) projectable image area standards (PH22.58 and PH22.106) were
consolidated into one standard and renamed PH22.195. The publication of PH22.195-1984 in the October 1984 Journal still had the
scope area as 0.700 X 0.838 inches.

The June 1992 SMPTE Journal published a proposed revision, with a scope area of 0.690 X 0.825 inches. In August 1993, the
standard was published as SMPTE 195-1993, with the current area of 0.690 X 0.825 inches. So August 1993 is when the two formats
became the same width of 0.825 inches.
______________________________________________________________________
http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/apertures.htm

------------------
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 Cell: 716-781-4036 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

 |  IP: Logged

Andy Muirhead
Master Film Handler

Posts: 323
From: Galashiels, Scotland
Registered: Dec 2000


 - posted 06-20-2001 07:17 PM      Profile for Andy Muirhead   Email Andy Muirhead   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Depends on your how your aperture plate is cut. Usually you can play about with the framing and get rid of the little flash on scene changes. This is sort of related to your other post, and i'm wondering if you saw any scope prints at the cinema that was showing boom mikes on flat prints?


 |  IP: Logged

Michael Brown
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1522
From: Bradford, England
Registered: May 2001


 - posted 06-21-2001 11:37 AM      Profile for Michael Brown   Email Michael Brown   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Yes, this was the same cinema. It looks like they in general have problems getting the framing correct.

 |  IP: Logged

Michael Brown
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1522
From: Bradford, England
Registered: May 2001


 - posted 06-21-2001 11:43 AM      Profile for Michael Brown   Email Michael Brown   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I went last night and as usuall a blck bar at the top of the adverts. The projectionist tried to adjust and ended up with black at the bottom. It looks like the aperture plates are cut to show just a bit too much height.

 |  IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

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


 - posted 06-21-2001 12:03 PM      Profile for John Pytlak   Author's Homepage   Email John Pytlak   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Standard SMPTE 195 specifies that the image height on a "hard matted" print be at least 0.505 inches (12.83mm), so the picture should be able to be framed without showing the black framelines even with a 1.66:1 aperture (0.825 x 0.497 inches, 20.96 x 12.62 mm). The 1.85:1 aspect ratio has a 0.825 x 0.446 inch (20.96 x 11.33 mm) projectable image area.

Perhaps the theatre was mistakingly using an "Academy" 1.37:1 image area (0.825 x 0.602 inches, 20.96 x 15.29 mm)?

------------------
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 Cell: 716-781-4036 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

 |  IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

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


 - posted 06-21-2001 02:42 PM      Profile for Brad Miller   Author's Homepage   Email Brad Miller       Edit/Delete Post 
This is a basic sketch (courtesy of Joe) showing what I wish 1.85 films would be printed like.

The black would give just enough padding to prevent aperture shadows from appearing and the clear areas would make it virtually impossible to exhibit the film to an audience without the customers raising all hell to the managers to get it framed correctly. The clear frame lines could even have black lettering that says "THIS FILM IS NOT BEING PROPERLY FRAMED - PLEASE CONTACT THE MANAGER".

It seems like cheap insurance for 1.85 filmmakers to ensure that their films are being presented in frame. Even if only the first reel of each movie was matted in this way it would pretty much solve most problems (not counting misframes within the print and changeover setups).


 |  IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

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


 - posted 06-21-2001 02:44 PM      Profile for John Pytlak   Author's Homepage   Email John Pytlak   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Great idea, but it would require an optical printing step to make the special matte and give the clear framelines.

------------------
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 Cell: 716-781-4036 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

 |  IP: Logged

Gordon McLeod
Film God

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


 - posted 06-21-2001 03:40 PM      Profile for Gordon McLeod   Email Gordon McLeod   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Except it should be hard matted at 1.66:1 to accomodate the fact that is the flat standard in many places.
In fact Paramount used to have a framing guide on the VV prints

 |  IP: Logged

John Walsh
Film God

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


 - posted 06-21-2001 07:51 PM      Profile for John Walsh   Email John Walsh   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
It might be nice if framing knobs had "click-stops" on them to lock in at each perforation. You know; you'd set some adjustment at installation time. Then, to fix an out-of-frame, you would push the knob in (like Simplexes) and turn one perf's worth - the knob would pop out. That way, it would either be exactly in frame, or so far out no one could miss it (although, I'm sure someone would!)

 |  IP: Logged

Randy Stankey
Film God

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


 - posted 06-21-2001 10:00 PM      Profile for Randy Stankey   Email Randy Stankey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
No, I think they should just dispense with the framing knob alltogether.

Just leave a recessed shaft on the side of the projector where the framing knob should be. Make the end of the shaft have a TORX head. In order to turn the framing shaft (knob) you would have to insert a special torx-shaped key.

If there was a misframe you could still fix it easily enough but you would have to go get the key from the booth manager, or the ranking manager on duty. Of course, the key would have to be signed out every time it gets used, thus leaving a paper trail of which "operator" has the most misframes. This could be used when it comes time for performance reviews. Those that need to borrow the framing key most often would get the crappiest reviews, and hence get the crappiest pay raises.

 |  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.