my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » Weird trailer for "Secondhand Lions" (Page 1)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Author Topic: Weird trailer for "Secondhand Lions" Jeff Joseph Expert Film Handler Posts: 131 From: Palmdale, CA, USA Registered: Jun 2000 posted 07-20-2003 01:39 AM                        I saw "Pirates of the Caribbean" today, a scope film. Attached was a trailer for "Secondhand Lions". The image for the trailer filled the scope screen. But: Everything looked too skinny. I don't see how this is possible. If they accidently showed a flat trailer with the scope lens, then everybody would look too fat. I don't see what circumstance would make everybody look too skinny. Has anyone else noticed anything odd about this trailer? I should add that it only looks slightly skinny.... not like, for example, running a scope trailer with a flat lens. Jeff Joseph SabuCat Productions  |  IP: Logged Aldo Baez Master Film Handler Posts: 266 From: USA Registered: Mar 2001 posted 07-21-2003 12:37 AM                    I thought it looked wierd too.. maybe they messed something up? I double checked the trailer tag and it said scope for sure.  |  IP: Logged Andrew Duggan Expert Film Handler Posts: 127 From: Albany, NY, USA Registered: Jun 2002 posted 07-21-2003 01:26 AM                        The one we've been running seems to be ok, although I haven't taken more than a cursory glance at it...odd.  |  IP: Logged Peter Kerchinsky Master Film Handler Posts: 326 From: Seattle, WA, USA Registered: Jan 2002 posted 07-21-2003 05:16 AM                     I saw this trailer on "Pirates" for the first time tonight and it looked squeezed for a "scope" trailer. Somebody screwed up again!!!!!  |  IP: Logged Bill Gabel Film God Posts: 3873 From: Technicolor / Postworks NY, USA Registered: Jan 2002 posted 07-21-2003 10:10 AM                     The film was shot Super-35 1.85. We have been doing the double-system screenings here in NYC.  |  IP: Logged John Pytlak Film God Posts: 9987 From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922 Registered: Jan 2000 posted 07-21-2003 12:33 PM                        quote: The film was shot Super-35 1.85. We have been doing the double-system screenings here in NYC. Not too many films have used Super-35 for 1.85:1 features ("Godfather Part III", "Fisher King", etc.), but the increased image area should result in improved graininess and sharpness. If the recentering/reformatting is done at the master-positive to duplicate-negative stage on a pin-registered printer, steadiness should also be improved.  |  IP: Logged Mark J. Marshall Film God Posts: 3188 From: New Castle, DE, USA Registered: Aug 2002 posted 07-21-2003 01:25 PM                    What does "double system screening" mean?  |  IP: Logged John Pytlak Film God Posts: 9987 From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922 Registered: Jan 2000 posted 07-21-2003 01:42 PM                        quote: What does "double system screening" mean? The soundtrack is on a separate media, interlocked with the projector.  |  IP: Logged Brett Rankin Film Handler Posts: 78 From: Sierra Madre, CA Registered: Jun 99 posted 07-21-2003 01:42 PM                     Why aren't all 1.85 films shot Super-35?  |  IP: Logged John Pytlak Film God Posts: 9987 From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922 Registered: Jan 2000 posted 07-21-2003 01:50 PM                        quote: Why aren't all 1.85 films shot Super-35? It requires at least one stage to be optically printed, or use "Digital Intermediate", so the extra quality comes at increased cost/time. Many television shows are shot in Super-35, often 3-perf pulldown, for eventual showing in both 4:3 and 16:9 aspect ratios -- transfers of Super-35 and 3-perf are widely available from film-to-video transfer labs.  |  IP: Logged Jeff Joseph Expert Film Handler Posts: 131 From: Palmdale, CA, USA Registered: Jun 2000 posted 07-21-2003 05:13 PM                        So my question is still: What's up with this trailer? I'm just never seen anything like it... Jeff  |  IP: Logged Adam Martin I'm not even gonna point out the irony. Posts: 3686 From: Dallas, TX Registered: Nov 2000 posted 07-21-2003 05:43 PM                     I thought the only purpose of Super 35 was so that anamorphic films could be made without the need for an anamorphic lens on the camera. I thought that the image was filmed with a 3-perf pulldown and the image was filmed with a spherical lens the width of the 35mm frame, then later optically printed to the height of the 4-perf frame and 2x compressed for standard scope prints. ??? How the heck would this work for 1.85?  |  IP: Logged Peter Kerchinsky Master Film Handler Posts: 326 From: Seattle, WA, USA Registered: Jan 2002 posted 07-21-2003 05:44 PM                     I agree with Jeff. Why does the trailer look squeezed even though we're playing it in scope, which is how the trailer band was marked. Any links John. Thanks.  |  IP: Logged Brian Guckian Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 594 From: Dublin, Ireland Registered: Apr 2003 posted 07-21-2003 09:47 PM                     Jeff, the fact you say the trailer is only slightly squeezed leads one to wonder if this isn't some digital transfer problem. I ran a trailer of a flat film a couple a years ago where the production company had posted the trailer digitally, but by mistake transferred a squeezed version back to film. Anamorphic video techniques are quite common in post-production, and are used to optimise resolution - even with "flat" film images as we know them. I won't go into the details here - I'm sure someone else could explain it more succinctly! It's also the case that more and more trailers are being done digitally and scanned back onto film - enabling e.g. Rick McCallum to memorably declare that each copy of the Star Wars Ep II trailers was (almost) an original! (No dupe negs). (On the other hand, maybe "Secondhand Lions" is just a long overdue breakthrough for tall, thin actors )  |  IP: Logged Steve Kraus Film God Posts: 4094 From: Chicago, IL, USA Registered: May 2000 posted 07-21-2003 10:01 PM                    Adam, most Super 35 feature films are still shot with 4-perf cameras. While Super 35 usually means extracting a 2.39:1 segment and making Scope format prints it is in fact possible to shoot any format in Super 35. It only refers to using the full silent width of the film so a later optical (or digital) transfer will reduce the size of the image and recenter it to clear the soundtrack area. You can do it with 1.85 and 1.66 and naturally you can shoot full frame silent 1.33 and reduce it to Academy 1.37 -- perhaps the original Super 35!  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

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.