A big blow to film production at Kodak and Fuji

eddym · Sep 5, 2010

Photo Engineer said:
I debate this constantly with myself!

Sometimes I wonder what I am doing here on APUG.

PE

I can answer that. You are making a huge contribution to both the knowledge and the civility of the discussion here. You're like the old EF Hutton commercials: when you speak, people listen. That's enough for me.

Worker 11811 · Sep 5, 2010

TerryM said:
If that 'Top Gun' print was 35mm, then it likely was 24 years old.

You can tell by looking at the film whether it's made from polyester base material or from acetate. If it's acetate, it's probably a vintage print. If it's polyester, it's probably a restrike. For popular repertory titles, it's not uncommon to strike a new print if the studio thinks they can make a buck.

There is a liquid film cleaner that can be applied to film which has a similar refractive index to the film base. It's a petroleum and paraffin based substance that doesn't evaporate like the old carbon tet based cleaners did. Applied and used consistently it will hide most of those "cat claw" scratches you see on the film and it will keep the dust and dirt from building up as well. It will make those old, beat up movies look almost like new again. I never run a movie without it.

I was once told by someone at a Hollywood Studio that blurring could be caused by a too-old xenon light past its usable life.

That is on the limits of my belief. Although an improperly aligned xenon lamp can overheat the film and cause it to buckle in the gate, just like the way your film "pops" when you put it in the enlarger, that effect can be minimized by carefully focusing the projector.

My suspicions are that the operator didn't pay attention. It is possible to focus the image at the start of the show and have it drift out of focus as the projector heats up. The wise projectionist will focus the image when the show starts then refocus about 10 minutes later. If you want to be really tricky, you'll find a focus point where the beginning of the show will be every so slightly blurry for the previews but, as the projector runs and heats up the image will slowly drift INTO focus. That way you never really have to focus at all. Just do it once at the beginning of the day and check it a few times throughout the day.

Your local theatre probably doesn't have a "projectionist" -- just ushers filling in as projectionists. :munch:

Unfortunately, this is all too true.
"Popper jockey" is a common term for kids who thread the projector then go downstairs to sell popcorn.

Gerald C Koch · Sep 5, 2010

3D is for young eyes. I am not interested in paying the additional price of a headache to view it.

Worker 11811 · Sep 5, 2010

I seem to remember reading an article, somewhere, that says there is a certain portion of the population who can not see 3-D imagery. I believe the term for such people is "stereoblind."

People who are severely nearsighted or farsighted or people with astigmatism apparently can't refocus their eyes to allow the two discrete images to superimpose. Then there are some people who, for some unknown reason, can't see 3-D no matter what. Their eyesight is normal but, when they look at a 3-D picture they just don't see anything different.

Photo Engineer · Sep 5, 2010

There are a variety of eye problems that limit the ability of some people to experience 3D. There are also problems which cause people to experience a false 3D in a 2D photo. In some, the 3D effect from 2D is a function of both eyes not sending the brain equal sized "pictures" and in another the effect is based on color with one color standing out in front, and another standing back from the central image. This latter is often caused by inability to fuse images or the use of prisms in glasses to enhance the fusion of images.

All of these conditions have complex latin names used by ophthalmologists and neurologists.

As for 3D making some people ill, at the Imax theater where I saw Avatar, they warn you of this before the film starts and they ask you to close your eyes if you should become ill and the effect will vanish. Whoopee! Or is that Whoop your Cookies?

PE

B&Wpositive · Sep 5, 2010

Worker 11811 said:
I seem to remember reading an article, somewhere, that says there is a certain portion of the population who can not see 3-D imagery. I believe the term for such people is "stereoblind."

People who are severely nearsighted or farsighted or people with astigmatism apparently can't refocus their eyes to allow the two discrete images to superimpose. Then there are some people who, for some unknown reason, can't see 3-D no matter what. Their eyesight is normal but, when they look at a 3-D picture they just don't see anything different.

This is true. Many people who have trouble focusing their vision, and/or or who have difficulty aiming and coordinating the fixation and focal points of their two eyes, can have trouble seeing in 3D. in fact, most nearsighted people, to some extent, have a somewhat flattened view of depth, at least when wearing their glasses. The reason is that eyes often do not focus at the point at which they are aimed, and the mismatch is what causes the blurred and flattened vision. Glasses correct the focus, but there is often still a misalignment between vergence and accomodation (which are supposed to be calibrated to the same plane via a synkinesis). This is where the "clutz with glasses who can't catch a ball" stereotype emerged from.

For anyone interested in sterovision, or anyone who has problems with it, there is a very interesting and informative book that you should read: http://www.fixingmygaze.com/ It's written by a neuroscientist who had strabismus which made it nearly impossible to achieve 3D vision until she had help from a neuro/behavioral specialist.

Most of us have verying degrees of sufficient depth perception in general; good enough to get by most of the time, but still not quite perfect.

lxdude · Sep 5, 2010

Very interesting, B&W. I am nearsighted, and was one of those klutzes as a kid. I had a hard time with glasses. They never seemed right. Though I could see sharply, it often seemed like one eye could not work with the other at times. As I got older, that stopped being so much of a problem, and my hand-eye coordination became good. Maybe I learned to accommodate it.

winger · Sep 5, 2010

The whole 3D thing seems to me to be the latest distraction Hollywood has come up with to keep people from noticing that every movie is a remake. And not an improvement. Someone told me at the start of the HD TV craze that it was just so cool - you just HAVE to see a football game in HD. Really? Does it change who wins? I guess this is a sign that I'm edging towards being a curmudgeon. I want a good plot acted well and shot so it contributes to the story. 3D is not a part of that.

Photo Engineer · Sep 5, 2010

Yeah, and color was a fad, so was cinemascope (wide screen movies for those who don't remember). But there were a lot of fads such as ToddAO, Cinerama (kinda like an anemic IMax with 2 vertical lines). Some make it and some don't. Unfortunately it is up to the public to decide!

PE

lxdude · Sep 5, 2010

When I was a kid, we went to see How the West Was Won and another time It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World at the Cinerama Dome in Hollywood. Both times I found it hard to keep up with everything as I kept swiveling my head to see the whole screen. I found the two stitch lines more distracting, though.

andrewkirkby · Sep 5, 2010

Photo Engineer said:
Yeah, and color was a fad, so was cinemascope (wide screen movies for those who don't remember). But there were a lot of fads such as ToddAO, Cinerama (kinda like an anemic IMax with 2 vertical lines). Some make it and some don't. Unfortunately it is up to the public to decide!

PE

Indeed, it is for the public to decide.

The majority of people i speak to say that 3D makes them ill. But that is academic at the end of the day, because once a cinema replaces a [film] projector with digi - thats another film-out print which is not getting made. Uptake of digital cinema is low here in Australia because of the high capital outlay and low patronage by historical standards. Unless of course we factor in the Toy Story 3s and Avatars which are more of an anomaly than regular occurence.

For now, i am happy that i have access to a great range of colour transparency films and an even bigger range of great B&W film. If one product is discontinued, i can use something else and still get the desired result i.e. an image.

AK

Brandon D. · Sep 5, 2010

winger said:
The whole 3D thing seems to me to be the latest distraction Hollywood has come up with to keep people from noticing that every movie is a remake. And not an improvement. Someone told me at the start of the HD TV craze that it was just so cool - you just HAVE to see a football game in HD. Really? Does it change who wins? I guess this is a sign that I'm edging towards being a curmudgeon. I want a good plot acted well and shot so it contributes to the story. 3D is not a part of that.

Unfortunately, I couldn't agree more... :munch:

Though, I wouldn't mind watching 3D movies if they were made with great plots and were well casted/acted. But, we seem to be in a world where "it's all about the technological revolution," and not about the whole entire experience.

Worker 11811 · Sep 5, 2010

Brandon D. said:
Unfortunately, I couldn't agree more... :munch:

Though, I wouldn't mind watching 3D movies if they were made with great plots and were well casted/acted. But, we seem to be in a world where "it's all about the technological revolution," and not about the whole entire experience.

Well, then, you're going to keel over in your chair when you read this!

http://gizmodo.com/5614433/this-is-the-first-imax-3d-porn-movie-yes-imax-3d-porn

Yes, folks! It's a porno movie in 3-D! IMAX 3-D, no less!
Bouncing boobs and male members, 20 feet tall and floating just inches in front of your face!

It's a must see!

If I'm not mistaken, IMAX 3D is a film process. :munch::munch::munch:

Ross Chambers · Sep 5, 2010

BTW don't forget that unless you're in a premium cinema location, but in one of the secondary regional ones, you'll be watching a release print which has been made via an interpositive and dupe negative, not from the master cut neg. Generations count in an analogue workflow, as we APUGERs all know.

Regards - Ross

hoffy · Sep 6, 2010

Worker 11811 said:
Well, then, you're going to keel over in your chair when you read this!

http://gizmodo.com/5614433/this-is-the-first-imax-3d-porn-movie-yes-imax-3d-porn

Yes, folks! It's a porno movie in 3-D! IMAX 3-D, no less!
Bouncing boobs and male members, 20 feet tall and floating just inches in front of your face!

It's a must see!

If I'm not mistaken, IMAX 3D is a film process. :munch::munch::munch:

Hmmm, I wonder if that will make it to my local IMAX......oh, no it won't, as it closed down 10 years ago due to its unpopularity... (& if you believe Boogie Nights, wasn't it the Porn industry that was the first to stray away from film )

lxdude · Sep 6, 2010

Worker 11811 said:
Bouncing boobs and male members, 20 feet tall and floating just inches in front of your face!

It's a must see!

Well hell, don't need no movie for that! Most of the members here are male-the subscribers too. Plenty of boobs too...don't know about the bouncing part though.:confused:
Or the 20 foot tall part...

Curt · Sep 6, 2010

oh no

Worker 11811 said:
Well, then, you're going to keel over in your chair when you read this!

http://gizmodo.com/5614433/this-is-the-first-imax-3d-porn-movie-yes-imax-3d-porn

Yes, folks! It's a porno movie in 3-D! IMAX 3-D, no less!
Bouncing boobs and male members, 20 feet tall and floating just inches in front of your face!

It's a must see!

If I'm not mistaken, IMAX 3D is a film process. :munch::munch::munch:

I knew it, I knew it, I knew it, you can go blind doing that stuff, dammmm they lied oh my god it's true.

It's a must see! Oh my god I can't see anything ------- oh never mind, silly me I had my 3D glasses on and the rooms dark and the computer is on.......

xxx

lxdude · Sep 6, 2010

lxdude · Sep 6, 2010

Worker 11811 said:
Yes, folks! It's a porno movie in 3-D! IMAX 3-D, no less!

Looking at the thread title, a big blow indeed...

Worker 11811 · Sep 6, 2010

Ross Chambers said:
BTW don't forget that unless you're in a premium cinema location, but in one of the secondary regional ones, you'll be watching a release print which has been made via an interpositive and dupe negative, not from the master cut neg. Generations count in an analogue workflow, as we APUGERs all know.

Regards - Ross

Yeah! That 3rd or 4th generation film print can still kick the tar and feathers out of anything that digital can throw at us, quality wise!

Ken Nadvornick · Sep 6, 2010

lxdude said:
When I was a kid, we went to see How the West Was Won and another time It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World at the Cinerama Dome in Hollywood. Both times I found it hard to keep up with everything as I kept swiveling my head to see the whole screen. I found the two stitch lines more distracting, though.

DAMN, 'dude...

I knew that was you two rows in front of me back in '68...

Ken

lxdude · Sep 6, 2010

Well, if you mean '63.....

Ken Nadvornick · Sep 6, 2010

lxdude said:
Well, if you mean '63.....

You mean... I'm really... 5 years older... than Mom told me I was...??

Damn... I hate it when that happens...

Probably also means my dog didn't just run away either...

Damn...

Ken

Curt · Sep 6, 2010

Every time those two movies are on the television I feel a compulsion to watch them. I especially love the mad mad world when they are in Long Beach CA. Spent some time there in the Service of the Country courtesy of Pres. Nixon. What ever happened to the Anchor cleaners and the White hat, cap or whatever it was called uniform shop. Is there still a "Copper Penny" restaurant? Where did the Pier go with the tattoo shops and rides. And the "hey fellow want a date in the bushes over there" guy? How do you spell seedy, icky?

I remember seeing the movies in the theater too, I was 3 months old and laughed the loudest, Ha ha ha, OK I was older, not telling but around 99, keyboard is sticking, just like this thread, Kodak are you listening, I'm buying film, just ordered some more Ilford FP4+ in 5X7, where's the Plus-X? I got some 8X10 too recently in 25 sheet boxes, not the 10 sheet ones.

eddym · Sep 6, 2010

winger said:
The whole 3D thing seems to me to be the latest distraction Hollywood has come up with to keep people from noticing that every movie is a remake. And not an improvement. Someone told me at the start of the HD TV craze that it was just so cool - you just HAVE to see a football game in HD. Really? Does it change who wins? I guess this is a sign that I'm edging towards being a curmudgeon. I want a good plot acted well and shot so it contributes to the story. 3D is not a part of that.

We of the Curmudgeon Club await you with open arms, Bethe!
I agree, the fanciest-schmanciest special effects and high-tech bells and whistles cannot save a show with a boring (or no) plot, leaden acting, and slapdash directing. Please, PLEASE, just tell me a good story!

A big blow to film production at Kodak and Fuji

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency