Posted by Stewart Pinkerton on 10/12/05 05:44

On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 19:23:37 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
<dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:

>In article <434bf995$0$15069$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net>,
> Ben <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>> > It would require an *incredibly* tatty 35mm film projector to give
>> > results in a cinema as soft as PAL at its best. And I doubt such a
>> > beast was ever used in UK mainstream cinemas. Of course if the lenses
>> > etc were filthy and it wasn't focused correctly...
>
>> I suspect what they discovered was that in a significant minority of
>> cases projectors were being manned by incompetent/indifferent minimum
>> wage teenagers who didn't know/care any better. Incorrect focus was
>> probably the main cause, although once you get down to the n-th
>> generation transfer that makes it to your local multiplex, the effective
>> resolution of the film is lower than people think (obviously I mean the
>> actual content, not what the film stock is capable of).
>
>I'm no expert on film, but I'd say there were no 'n-th' generation
>transfer. The cost of film stock makes this ludicrous. A 35mm print of a
>feature film costs many thousands. So it makes sense to make it from an
>original 'master'.

The fact remains that what's showing in your local multiplex is at
least three generations removed from the original negative, and more
likely five. It makes no sense at all to use the original 'final cut'
master more than once - just as they did with analogue tape masters.

1 master negative > several sub-master interpositives

1 sub-master interpositive > several sub-master internegatives

1 sub-master internegative > several first-run prints + distribution
interpositives

1 distribution interpositive > several distribution internegatives

1 distribution internegative > several distribution prints

So, unless you're watching the film on its premiere, you're very
unlikely to be closer than five generations away from the film in the
camera. What, you think they make thousands of prints directly from 1
master negative? Consider the risk......

>This is why there's been a dash to video projection.
> Nothing about picture quality but purely to save money. And to extend
> life. A real film is easily damaged. And frequently were.

Not entirely. It's certainly true that it will ultimately save money,
but you have two-fold advantages of simultaneous release world-wide
possible within a day of the final edits, and also original master
quality in *every* cinema. 'Perfect vision forever' - as some
marketing droid will doubtless say..................
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Back to original message]