Pink Panther. Boom visible in at least 10 shots.

[Guest razerfish]

The boom is visible is so many shots it distracts the hell out of you. I saw a thread on this at IMDB and they blamed the projectionist. That means that my theater has a terrible projectionist, too. Strange because I normally go to this theater and have never seen them project the wrong aspect ratio before. This is the first time I've seen so many booms dip into frame in any movie. Luckily the movie was so terrible it was refreshing to see the boom make its appearance every few minutes.

[Tim J Durham]

The boom is visible is so many shots it distracts the hell out of you. I saw a thread on this at IMDB and they blamed the projectionist. That means that my theater has a terrible projectionist, too. Strange because I normally go to this theater and have never seen them project the wrong aspect ratio before. This is the first time I've seen so many booms dip into frame in any movie. Luckily the movie was so terrible it was refreshing to see the boom make its appearance every few minutes.

 

I saw the film "Red Rock West" by John Dahl in the theatre. It was originally produced for Showtime (TV) so 4:3 and there were 12 boom sightings or thereabouts. This is puzzling because the blow up was 1.66:1:

 

http://imdb.com/title/tt0105226/technical

 

so that would mean that the sides would be trimmed for 4:3 and the top/bottom would stay the same, right? Nearly all the boom sightings were top of the frame.

[David Mullen ASC]

The problem isn't usually the wrong aspect ratio, it's the fact that the 1.85 mask in the projector crops the 1.33 print image, but the projectionist can adjust the headroom up or down within the mask, so if they don't center the image vertically, boom mics above the 1.85 line will be visible.

 

Which another one reason to just protect the 4x3 TV frame outside of 1.85 as a double-protection against the mic becoming visible in misprojection. However, many sound people hate protecting for TV because they want to get the mic as close as possible, just above the 1.85 frameline.

[Craig Knowles]

I went to see it and didn't notice anything. I would have asked for my money back if I did. Talk about suspension of disbelief.

[Leo Anthony Vale]

The problem isn't usually the wrong aspect ratio, it's the fact that the 1.85 mask in the projector crops the 1.33 print image, but the projectionist can adjust the headroom up or down within the mask, so if they don't center the image vertically, boom mics above the 1.85 line will be visible.

 

Which another one reason to just protect the 4x3 TV frame outside of 1.85 as a double-protection against the mic becoming visible in misprojection. However, many sound people hate protecting for TV because they want to get the mic as close as possible, just above the 1.85 frameline.

 

---C.Hall said that he shot 'In Cold Blood' in Panavision so it couldn't be misframed in projection.

 

I first saw 'Eraserhead' in 16mm. The print was hard matted to 1.85.

I later saw it a few times in 35mm, each time projected at 1.33. While ther were no mike booms at the top of that frame, there were occasionally clip on lights.

 

'Lord Love a Duck' is infamous for mikes at the top of the frame. IMDB.com claims that was deliberate, but the audience never got the joke. No source given.

 

'Sleeper' also had mikes in frame a lot when watching on it TV.

David walsh was the DP. I watched him shooting a night exterior in san Francisco for 'The Laughing Policeman'. He was talking with a gaffer or operator about a light appearing in the frame.

He was told that the light was flagged off, but the flag was visible.

'Can you see it in 1.85?'

'No.'

" I don't care if they can see it on TV.'

 

---LV

[James Steven Beverly]

Why not just digitally remove them? I couldn't add that much to a large production. Bad puplisity will probably cost the prodution more than the removal process.

[Tim Tyler]

I noticed the boom in Pink Panther too. What a terrible movie. I left after about 45 minutes.

[David Mullen ASC]

Why not just digitally remove them? I couldn't add that much to a large production. Bad puplisity will probably cost the prodution more than the removal process.

 

For many 1.85 movies, digital efx shots aren't even rendered full-frame, but with a hard matte. No one is going to spend the time & money doing digital efx or touch-up work to parts of the frame that are supposed to be OUTSIDE of the theatrical frame. They'll spend the money to fix a problem in the theatrical area, like to erase a scratch or piece of film equipment.

 

But if a mic above, beyond, and outside the theatrical frame was considered a "mistake" that would need tens of thousands of dollars to fix in post, don't you think the studio would simply make it a policy to not let the mic be photographed anywhere on the negative? Clearly it's not considered a mistake to photograph the mic as long as it is outside the theatrical frame.

 

It would be far cheaper just to add a hard matte to the print so that if the projectionist misframed, all you'd see is the black border come into view.

 

Also, I seriously doubt that the worldwide box office take will be significantly controlled by how often the mic comes into view in theaters that are misprojecting the movie. There are far more important factors that determine box office success.

 

What's also annoying is not just that some theaters are misframing 1.85, but that most audience members actually don't notice or care enough to get up and complain to the manager to get it fixed.

 

On the other hand, I walked out of "Brothers Grimm" because the theater couldn't hold the left half of the screen in focus. I later rented it on DVD and still could barely sit through it even though it was all in focus now... I guess I'm saying that proper projection can't save a bad movie.

 

Like I said, I often try and keep the mic outside of 4x3 TV, not just outside of 1.85 -- mainly because sometimes the producers will see an unletterboxed transfer and freak-out when they keep seeing the mic, so I'm trying to save the soundman a load of hurt from the producers -- but many recordists insist on keeping the mic just outside of theatrical, and when you ask them to pull it up a little higher, the retort is "what, are we making a TV movie or a theatrical movie?"

 

It's another reason why I like shooting anamorphic. There's nothing really above or below on the negative outside of the theatrical frame.

 

But, again, the simple solution would be to just hard matte the 1.85 release prints, probably to 1.66 or 1.78.

[James Steven Beverly]

I see what your saying. I'm so used to thinking digital, I didn't think of it that way. Your way of framing makes more sense to me too, I mean do you really HAVE to get the mic into the frame, even if it shouldn't be seen, to get good sound? Is it going to really be any better than if it were few inches higher?

[David Mullen ASC]

do you really HAVE to get the mic into the frame, even if it shouldn't be seen, to get good sound? Is it going to really be any better than if it were few inches higher?

 

Closer is generally better, especially if the actors are speaking quietly. But obviously it's a sliding scale in terms of how bad it gets as it gets farther away.

 

Half of the HD features I shot were framed for cropping to 2.35 for output to 35mm scope. So obviously there would be no mic problems in the scope print, but I generally insist on keeping the whole 16x9 HD frame clear of mics and equipment because it reduces the amount of panning & scanning I have to do for the 16x9 full-frame and 4x3 versions I'll have to create for home video. Plus all the dailies are straight downconversions, not letterboxed to 2.35. But I get a lot of complaints from sound recordists about the excess headroom (2.35 inside 1.78 is about the same amount of cropping as 1.85 from 1.33.)

[Craig Knowles]

I noticed the boom in Pink Panther too. What a terrible movie. I left after about 45 minutes.

 

Then what you mean to say is "the first 45 minutes are terrible."

Edited February 18, 2006 by Craig Knowles

[Craig Knowles]

It would be far cheaper just to add a hard matte to the print so that if the projectionist misframed, all you'd see is the black border come into view.

...

But, again, the simple solution would be to just hard matte the 1.85 release prints, probably to 1.66 or 1.78.

 

Is there even a cost associated with doing this? I just assumed most if not all theatrical releases would be hard matted, especially in cases where it is known that booms are visible inside the 4x3 frame.

 

Though I have not seen any boom drops lately, I have sat through some obviously mis-projected films where heads were consistently touching the top of the screen.

 

It's funny how much you can learn about the aims and strengths of proper composition by watching badly projected films that display good compositions. What we take for granted suddenly becomes obvious - obviously tension-inducing.

[Tim J Durham]

Then what you mean to say is "the first 45 minutes are terrible."

 

So were the last 45 minutes. Unfortunately, my 7 y.o. son was loving it. I told him I'd rent him the real Pink Panther movies so he could see those, too.

 

I understand Steve Martins (he actually WROTE this dreck) next project is a remake of Citizen Kane. Whoopeeeee

[David Mullen ASC]

I've never done it, but I assume that when making the IN off of the IP, you could use a mask in the printer? Or would it have to be done to the IP using a C-roll that had a solid black rectangle inside of a clear frame, so that a black matte would be printed into the positive? Is so, I could see why the studios wouldn't want to do that because the IP is used for making the home video transfers.

 

Personally, I wish I could just shoot 1.85 movies with a 1.66 hard matte in-camera, or shoot them in 3-perf Super-35 and do a D.I. and output them with a 1.78 hard matte.

[James Steven Beverly]

So were the last 45 minutes. Unfortunately, my 7 y.o. son was loving it. I told him I'd rent him the real Pink Panther movies so he could see those, too.

 

I understand Steve Martins (he actually WROTE this dreck) next project is a remake of Citizen Kane. Whoopeeeee

 

Citizen Kane?!! your kidding Right? It'll probably turn out like the David Soul's 83 series Casablanca did.

[Leo Anthony Vale]

I understand Steve Martins (he actually WROTE this dreck) next project is a remake of Citizen Kane. Whoopeeeee

 

---Hopefully as a TV series, where the newspaperman interviews a new kane associate each week.

Since the season finale will need to end on a cliff hanger, we won't find out what Rosebud is; but that Arkadan might have it.

 

---LV

[Dominic Case]

Capt.Video writes:

Is it going to really be any better than if it were few inches higher?

It's worth remembering that sound follows the inverse square law, the same as light. (Assuming a point source, which is more or less true for actors depending on the size of their mouth :D )

 

So if a mike is a metre away from the actor instead of 50cm, the voice level will be 6dB down. That's the same as losing two stops of exposure.

 

Of course on bigger budget films the dialogue is all revoiced in ADR anyway, so a distant mike wouldn't be an issue: but that's a big budget solution if the problem is nothing more than wrong framing in projection.

 

David Mullen writes:

I've never done it, but I assume that when making the IN off of the IP, you could use a mask in the printer? Or would it have to be done to the IP using a C-roll that had a solid black rectangle inside of a clear frame, so that a black matte would be printed into the positive?

Since you need a black frameline, yes you would have to burn it in to the IP as you suggest - which prevents the IP from being used for 4x3 video mastering. So that's out.

 

The otehr alternative is a possibility - that is, printing the DN with an overlay frame line matte. Yes it would cost something - a trivial amount in the scheme of things - but it's only occasionally ordered - by the same argument as David used, money tends to be spent on fixing real problems (God knows there are usually enough to get on with), not ones that wouldn't be problems if the film were projected correctly.

 

Though I've never noticed a film getting bad publicity, or losing box office, because of bad projection - or bad prints or bad dupes or grainy stock or anything like that.

[David Mullen ASC]

So if you wanted to print a hard matte into the IN, I assume it has be done in an optical printer? You can't use a continuous contact printer?

[Greg Gross]

Somebody got the idea that they could replace Peter Sellers! Now the whole world knows

that they can't. If I have to go to the cinema one more time and see that stupid cell phone

commercial "I'M GOING TO SCREAM!!!! Fade Out

 

Greg Gross

 

Will it be an original film? Martin's new project that is.

 

Greg Gross

[James Steven Beverly]

Thanks for the Info, Dominic, I didn't realize that. I've been using a 14in shootgun for most of my stuff altough I have several other mics. The sound usually comes out very clean but of course most of the stuff i've don't was shot in my studio and on location I like to mic the actors in many shots so they will find it easier to suspend they're belief and get into the scene more thouroghly because there's less to distract them. I know most of the pros in my area but the one thing I haven't found is someone who does sound for film. Lots of guys who do music and stage but not film so I usually set it up myself and train someone how to use the boom. I've anyways kept the mic just above the frameline (or just under depending on the shot). But film ain't video. I had no idea you could get the mic in frame (academy standard frame) without a problem, unless of course, like the Pink Panther, it's projected wrong.

[Mark Dunn]

If you're contcat printing there isn't really anywhere to put a mask and get it sharp. At college (crumbs, 24 years ago) we had an answer print hard-matted to 1.66, and that was done with a C-roll. And yes, we protected to 1.33; no booms in the rushes.