ForgotPassword?
Sign Up
Search this Topic:
Forum Jump
Jan 2 08 6:31 PM
Jan 2 08 8:06 PM
Joe Karlosi wrote: Gee, look at all that "excess head room" in the Sinister copy of Martin Kosleck standing on the beach! I hate to be contrary, but it IS supposed to be a science-- Yes, I know... but I'm sayin' , what's the use if you're the only guy out there who seems able to properly frame them?
I hate to be contrary, but it IS supposed to be a science--
Jan 3 08 3:03 AM
Jan 3 08 4:55 AM
Koukol 5 wrote: Now I'm worried about the upcoming SHE BEAST and TRAGIC CEREMONY DVDs.
Jan 3 08 7:56 AM
Jeffrey Allen Rydell wrote: K - two posts in on this for you, and I still don't know what your point is.
Jan 3 08 12:27 PM
Joe Karlosi wrote: Jeffrey Allen Rydell wrote: K - two posts in on this for you, and I still don't know what your point is. I'm sorry to hear that.
Jan 3 08 5:40 PM
Jeffrey Allen Rydell wrote: Joe Karlosi wrote: Just goes to show that the whole framing issue is never an exact science. That is to say, not everyone arranges it the same way... Yes, it's a process fraught with the potential for error....
Joe Karlosi wrote: Just goes to show that the whole framing issue is never an exact science. That is to say, not everyone arranges it the same way...
Jan 3 08 5:56 PM
Jan 3 08 5:59 PM
Sometimes it seems that if you had, say, three different projectionists each arranging the framing of a certain movie, they'd each be at least a bit different.
Jan 3 08 6:18 PM
Joe Karlosi wrote: Jeffrey Allen Rydell wrote: Joe Karlosi wrote: Just goes to show that the whole framing issue is never an exact science. That is to say, not everyone arranges it the same way... Yes, it's a process fraught with the potential for error.... Ah, so then you did understand (and agree with) my point. Sometimes it seems that if you had, say, three different projectionists each arranging the framing of a certain movie, they'd each be at least a bit different.
Jan 3 08 6:20 PM
In theory, no. Before your show, you run a test loop through first.
Jan 3 08 6:23 PM
Jan 3 08 6:34 PM
Jeffrey Allen Rydell wrote: quelling your usual contrarian stance I still don't get what you're driving at. It's possible that it can be done badly, so we should be happy with whatever? Old films shouldn't be matted at all cuz they might screw it up? Anyone who's critical in a way unspecific to your own views is wasting their (and the board's) time? Joe Bellicosi just likes to argue? What?
Jan 3 08 6:37 PM
WAR OF THE COLOSSAL BEAST is a Lionsgate/Arkoff Collection title and transfer, not an MGM.
Jan 3 08 6:50 PM
Joe Karlosi wrote: Jeffrey Allen Rydell wrote: quelling your usual contrarian stance I still don't get what you're driving at. It's possible that it can be done badly, so we should be happy with whatever? Old films shouldn't be matted at all cuz they might screw it up? Anyone who's critical in a way unspecific to your own views is wasting their (and the board's) time? Joe Bellicosi just likes to argue? What? Well, for one thing I don't believe I ever said "we should be happy with whatever". Jeff - I'd appreciate it if you could stop jumping on me as you're becoming increasingly more and more prone to doing. Also, would you please refrain from the namecalling (like 'Bellicosi')? I'm quite frankly getting tired of a few suspects making every effort to paint me (both on the boards and to the mods) as "wanting to argue" (though I do enjoy a spirited debate at times) or "not tolerant of other views". Also, if I tend to be contrarian at times, well, this is not against forum guidelines either, and it's allowed. Sorry if you don't care for that, but I don't have to agree with everything stated everywhere, anywhere.
TServo4 wrote: Platters are pretty much industry standard these days. Films are still shipped on reels and still have changeover cue marks on them (for a number of reasons), but the film gets assembled on one large platter. There are a number of problems with platter systems when it comes to treating film, though, and because of the stress they put on film, are the reason polyester stocks have become standard (as opposed to older Tri-acetate safety). I prefer and use two projectors, and it is archival practice to do so. You cannot book most repertory prints unless you run reel-to-reel.
Jan 3 08 6:57 PM
Jan 3 08 7:02 PM
TServo4 wrote: If you REALLY want to see something crazy, check this out: http://www.film-tech.com/warehouse/wareview.php?id=1261&category=3 16 projectors running in interlock--- all running the same print.
Jan 3 08 7:06 PM
Jan 3 08 7:19 PM
Share This