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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » Harry Potter Quality? (Page 1)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Author Topic: Harry Potter Quality? Dean Kollet Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 591 From: Florida State University Registered: Jul 2003 posted 06-04-2004 12:32 AM                     I don't know about everyone else, but this film (all 4 prints that we have) looks horrible on screen. It's grainy and the colors are just plain crap...I think the last movie I screened that looked like this (be it intentional) was 21 Grams...  |  IP: Logged Paul G. Thompson The Weenie Man Posts: 4718 From: Mount Vernon WA USA Registered: Nov 2000 posted 06-04-2004 12:48 AM                     Yeah, Dean. I noted basically the same thing in the trailer. I thought my eyes were going bad, because I thought the focus was crappy. It looked soft to me. I "rode the focus knob" during the preview, but after the fourth run of the trailer, I said "Poop on it." I know that is not very professional, but I have sure seen some very poor quality on the mastering of trailers. By the way you describe, it does not surprise me. It seems as though the motto is "Get it out the door and let's worry about it later." I will be running that movie Saturday, and I'll post some feedback on it since you opened the door.  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 06-04-2004 01:29 AM                     I just installed a couple of Kinoton heads and did a side by side comparison on Shrek and during the screening of Harry Potter against a Simplex. The results were amazing and everyone, yes EVERYONE (including teenage staff members) noticed the increase in sharpness. I got a couple of compliments from people who didn't even know anything had been changed in the booth. Potter looked quite good on that Kinoton! The slightest movement on screen really kills the resolution.  |  IP: Logged Dean Kollet Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 591 From: Florida State University Registered: Jul 2003 posted 06-04-2004 02:19 AM                     Brad, seems like you are favoring the Kinoton's...what kind did you install? I should say that we are using Simplex 1060's :-)...but we haven't had problems with any other prints. -Dean  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 06-04-2004 02:45 AM                     PK60D on SLC console.  |  IP: Logged Steve Scott Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1300 From: Minneapolis, MN Registered: Sep 2000 posted 06-04-2004 08:44 AM                     There's just different contrast qualities to it, and as a result, you may have trouble with different combinations of lenses & light. The film looked very clear on my SA's with XeTron consoles (3 or 4kW this week), schneider lenses.  |  IP: Logged Michael Barry Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 584 From: Sydney, NSW, Australia Registered: Nov 1999 posted 06-04-2004 09:34 AM                     Yay, Kinoton! Glad to see you liked it, Brad. I am particularly fond of their platter pay-out mechanism (no swing arm, no moving parts at all) and their new make-up table which synchronises platter and MUT transport in both make-up and break-down modes! (Does anyone else offer this?) Here's a first - an advertising slogan that ACTUALLY HAS SUBSTANCE. That is, Kinton's tagline is 'See The Difference'...and you actually can. No hype!  |  IP: Logged Christian Appelt Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 505 From: Frankfurt, Germany Registered: Dec 2001 posted 06-04-2004 05:41 PM                     I just came from seeing HARRY POTTER, and image quality leaves much to be desired. When I compare it to the first two films, it looks slightly better because it has less grain, but except some closeups, the image is very soft, lacking details. There was quite some negative dust, picture steadiness was OK. Contrast seems to high to me, giving the film a "dupey" look. Not state of the art even for Super 35 photography, but better than Part 2 which looked worse than 16mm scope to me when it came out. But I heard that quality varied between prints from different labs (for the German market), like in the case of TROY. I liked the picture much more than 1&2, but why can't they get it really sharp. Oh, and I did see it on Kinoton machines...  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 06-04-2004 10:28 PM                     Michael, Kinoton is on the right track to a magnificent platter design, but until they listen to the problems with it and fix them, I'm not going to install one.  |  IP: Logged Michael Barry Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 584 From: Sydney, NSW, Australia Registered: Nov 1999 posted 06-04-2004 10:35 PM                     I know that the payout angle is too narrow to allow another layer of film to be placed on top - is this your main concern with its design? I know that some people don't like how you must match the height of your film return from the projector to the platter.  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 06-05-2004 01:28 AM                     The return height of the film on takeup is an issue, yes. That's just insanely moronic. The layering of film isn't that big of an issue, but an arm that could be flipped over to cover the opening as the film enters the brain would solve that issue for anyone with it. (Look at a new AW3 center ring with the latch to see the concept.) There are many other issues with it though. I know I've gone over it on the forums before and I brought it up to Kinoton at ShoWest. A few quick ones off the top of my head... Needs a platter mount film cleaner bracket no higher than 4 feet off the floor. Big Sky and MiT mount theirs at the top of the tree, apparently because they think everyone using their equipment is at least 9 1/2 feet tall. It needs to be somewhere around waist level for ease of use. True swivel rollers for feed and return, not the way Kinoton designed it with the feed one having 180 degrees of travel and the takeup one having the *other* 180 degrees of travel. That's stupid and accomplishes nothing, because the projector STILL has to be at that exact 90 degree angle to the platter! Each platter should payout and takeup individually. If I have two ST-200 platters and I want to feed from one and takeup on the other, I should be able to do that! (I have not verified that this is indeed an issue, but was told that it was.) Automation should not have to *tell* the platter when the projector is started. The platter should be able to figure this out on it's own like all others. The platter should also be smart enough to be able to leave 3 brains mounted at all times and figure out which platter is the payout via the sensors and which platter is the takeup by which arm has been pulled. Duh! User-adjustable ramp speeds on payout is also desired. I've never met an "auto adjusting" platter that I liked, and the Kinoton is no different. No two platter decks are alike in speed. If I want the platter to take 10 seconds to ramp from full stop to full on at the start of the show, I should be able to set that. Likewise if I wanted it to reach full speed in 1.5 seconds, I should be able to set that. (Obviously the more sluggish the better.) As you can see, none of this is anything that would require Kinoton to junk the design. It just needs a few modifications to be really great. Until then, it's the Christie AW3 all the way. Let's take this elsewhere if someone else feels the need to comment. This topic is getting too far off track.  |  IP: Logged Michael Barry Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 584 From: Sydney, NSW, Australia Registered: Nov 1999 posted 06-05-2004 06:41 AM                     I'd like to respond - please go ahead and move this discussion where appropriate (then let me know where!) Thanks!  |  IP: Logged Antonio Marcheselli Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1260 From: Florence, Italy Registered: Mar 2000 posted 06-05-2004 06:47 PM                        Hi Our copy of HP came in very good shape, bright and detailed image, wonderful colors, crear and amazing sound. Bye A  |  IP: Logged Paul G. Thompson The Weenie Man Posts: 4718 From: Mount Vernon WA USA Registered: Nov 2000 posted 06-05-2004 09:20 PM                     Ran it today, didn't have any quality problems. Looked fine to me, and nobody lodged any complaints.  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 06-05-2004 09:48 PM                     Michael, just start a new thread and link back to this one.  |  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.