|  IP: Logged

 |  IP: Logged

 |  IP: Logged

In the US most subtitled pictures carry an ID for the subtitling lab in the end credits. Amelie, though, does not have such an ID.

1. They can be optically or digitally printed, such that they are part of the duplicate negative used for release printing.

2. They can be "bi-pack" printed, where the subtitles are printed from a separate B&W negative "sandwiched" with the picture negative.

3. They can be "chemically etched" on the film, using a bleach solution controlled by a wax stencil coated on the processed print, and later removed.

4. Laser subtitles use a high powered laser to burn away the print film emulsion in the lettered area.

Method 1 usually produces sharp titles, since the subtitles are actually part of the image on the printing negative. Method 2 may be less sharp, since you are printing through two thicknesses of film. Methods 3 and 4 may focus differently, since the picture is contained within the emulsion, and the titles are bare film base.

 |  IP: Logged

I fould the overall focus on Amelie was greatly improved when it moved to our hall with the lowest brightness - which is still above the standard (and as high as he can push it.) It was actually a great print and looked superb when shown in this way.

quote:

---

He insists that every screen is as bright as possible, completely ignoring the standards. I actually find them annoyingly bright, to the point where watching for too long gives me a headache.

---

 |  IP: Logged

Yes, a three-blade shutter would raise the flicker rate to 72 interruptions per second, so flicker would be much less of an issue if the screen luminance was too high. But going above the 22 footlambert limit specified by standard SMPTE 196M will also change the appearance of the print from what was approved by the director and cinematographer --- highlights will be brighter, colors more saturated, and you may see details in the shadows that you were not meant to see:
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/newsletters/reel/spring98/pointers.shtml
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/newsletters/notes/march2000/pytlak.shtml

The bottom line: try to maintain a screen luminance close to 16 footlamberts, which is how the prints were intended to be shown.

I used to think, "how nice, subtitles to get an easy, perfect focus." Doesn't quite work that way with the etched subtitles. I discovered that you can focus the subtitles and find the image soft. Obviously you want to focus the picture and let the subtitles fall where they may. How much of a disparity between the hard focal point of the image and that of the etched subtitles will depend on the depth-of-field of your optical system.

In a house with a short throw and large screen, the problem can be quite sever. Theatres with moderately sized screens and longer throws have a optical system that is more at the center of the optimum curve and will not experience these focus problem -- even warped film can be focused. These are the theatres where you can rack the focus knob back and forth and see practically no change because there is a steep depth-of-field -- the lens is focusing in front and in back of the exact point of the film. But in theatres where the depth-of-field is shallow, there is only ONE place where you get perfect focus....not a micro before it or behind it. With those systems, just the difference in the thickness of the emulsion is enough to kick the subtitles out of focus.

Danny hinted on something though -- the amount of light passing through the lens can affect depth-of-field; you can improve the depth-of-field by increasing the gross light output of the lamphouse and then irising down the lens opening, much like you increase the depth-of-field in a camera by stopping down the lens. I saw this done once to amazing effect. He was trying to compensate for a print with some serious warpage. He cut a circle out of piece of "black wrap" and put this on the casing of the rear end of the lens. He experimented with the size of the hole and after a lot of hit and miss, he was able to strike a balance between cutting back the light and increasing the depth-of-field so that the focus problem, while it didn't totally disappear on some of the really badly warped reels, it made a decided difference for most of the show.

What I could never understand is why they just don't print the subtitles in the wasted black area below the image. Seems to me that would eliminate a host of problems. You could use the printing method to make your subtitles rather than etching -- no focus problems, they would always be in focus because they are in the same emulsion position as the image....also, there wouldn't be any image movement distracting the eye while it's trying to read them -- just nice white text on a black background.

Their policy is to put the subtitles in yellow which is much clearer to read. Films are shown on standard tv in their full aspect ratio thus leaving black bars top and bottom. SBS puts the subtitles in the lower black bar which makes for better enjoyment of the film.
I might as well click on this link

It is a bit galling that in this day of high technology, digital prints etc one still goes to a see a Teletota subtitled film and struggles to see the words because the white subtitles get lost in the background. Would it be so technologically difficult to develop a low cost projection system to display subtitles immediately below the picture frame? The system could read digitally encoded subtitles from the soundtrack or from some other encoding method. I think that this would significantly improve viewing pleasure of foreign films.

How many times have you struggled to read the subtitles on a foreign film because they blended in with the background?

cheers Peter

DTS already has such a system!:
http://www.dtsonline.com/cinema/dts-css.html

DTS sure is an impressive system with so many ancillary applications. I hear they have already designed the DTS code to fit in the 16mm soundtrack. Now there's an idea, 6 channel digital sound with only the cost of a 16mm print -- and it could be shipped on a single reel -- no print makeup. Would work fine in 75% of the shopping mall miniplexes where the screen size doesn't need anything more than 16mm.