3-perf to 4-perf transfer?

[David Mullen ASC]

You don't have a way of printing a 1.78 mask for a 3-perf negative, you'd have to mask it further to 1.85?

[Dirk DeJonghe]

If there is a requirement, we could make a 1.78 mask on 4Perf to be used when optical printing 3Perf full frame to 4 Perf. There is little demand for this kind of masking, we mostly use 1.66 and 1.85.

[Doug Palmer]

Far as I know, there aren't ANY 3 perf projectors around. I'd bet there were only a few, 4 perf projectors modified and they're probably long gone.

 

3 perf came around right at the end of cutting on film, so there would be no reason to project 3 perf camera positive. Filmmakers would simply transfer the negative to video, cut on video, conform the negative and reduction print it to 4 perf.

 

Adding sound to 2 or 3 perf is easy, Dolby Digital already resides between the sprockets. Adding a timecode track to the outside edge were SDDS is, would also be simple.

 

My 2 perf and 3 perf table top projector idea would be specifically designed to run a modified format. However, it costs a lot of money to develop. I did see a very similar design recently that kinda threw me off a bit, even though it was 4 perf, the concept was very similar.

This 4-perf tabletop design, is it going ahead ?

Regarding your 3-perf / 2-perf idea Tyler, I'm sure there must be quite a number of people interested in this kind of thing. As discussed some months ago:

http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=69361&page=5

To me it appears a very attractive concept to be able to show a 2 or 3-perf print without going through all the costs (and potential loss of quality) of making 4-perf prints. This way you are getting the real analogue wide experience at a fraction of the cost of those extra and unnecessary generations. And if the digital sound playing can be simplified, say no more...

[Tyler Purcell]

Wish I had the money to develop it. I really want to figure out of I can use a rolling loop design vertically. In my mind, that would be the ultimate design, with a high-power LED lamp in the middle of the rotary projector that doesn't require any crazy ventilation. The shutter would be rotary based and it COULD run 2, 3, 4 perf film. I'm just not sure if you can do what I want to do because it requires vacuum and unlike 15/70, 2 and 3 perf is such a smaller physical image, I don't know if it would work.

 

Personally, I'm not really interested in developing/designing something that uses the same ol' movement, just modified. I'm only interested in doing something totally different, super small, lightweight and quiet.

 

The guy who will help me design this beast, just got a huge mill, so all I need is a rapid prototyping machine.

[Doug Palmer]

Wish I had the money to develop it. I really want to figure out of I can use a rolling loop design vertically. In my mind, that would be the ultimate design, with a high-power LED lamp in the middle of the rotary projector that doesn't require any crazy ventilation. The shutter would be rotary based and it COULD run 2, 3, 4 perf film. I'm just not sure if you can do what I want to do because it requires vacuum and unlike 15/70, 2 and 3 perf is such a smaller physical image, I don't know if it would work.

 

Personally, I'm not really interested in developing/designing something that uses the same ol' movement, just modified. I'm only interested in doing something totally different, super small, lightweight and quiet.

 

The guy who will help me design this beast, just got a huge mill, so all I need is a rapid prototyping machine.

Yes money is a problem :)

But potentially I can see a great interest in such a projector.

We assume that most people don't care about the images they see on a cinema screen. 2K with aliasing and all the rest. But maybe they really do and just stay silent. They maybe decide next time to stay at home and watch a better image on their 4K TV. And what about 4K projection ? To me and probably others it just looks flat and uninteresting on big screens. 8K ? I've never seen it so can't comment.

 

So for projection I still think there's a future for 35mm. None of the artifacts and other problems associated with digital. Digital sound on the other hand is obviously the way to go and is fantastic quality. Not that I am a good judge of this as I'm half deaf :lol: and others may disagree.

35mm projection suffered about 10 years ago because it was run by non-projectionists. And the nail in the coffin was anamorphic lenses. They have to be set up perfectly (even some Hateful 8 projectionists had trouble remember ? a rather different issue I know) but when run by amateurs they are disastrous when not focused properly. Anamorphics only came into being to counter the TV menace in the 1950s, but then there were many trained projectionists who knew all about showmanship. So today, throw out the anamorphics.

 

And that's the attraction of 3-perf and 2-perf. 2.4: 1 without anamorphics. It makes sense therefore to avoid making squeezed prints from them. And gaining quality at the same time. 2-perf was awful when it was first introduced in the 60s (Son of Spartacus remains etched in my memory), but now with Vision 3 has reached a high enough standard to be shown on big size screens. It seems crazy to me to spend money on squeezed versions of what should be highly economic ways of shooting film.

[David Mullen ASC]

Most people who make movies don't expect to have to bring their own personal projectors to screenings, hence the need to conform to what is commonly used in theaters, at festivals, etc. So what's the use of having a 2-perf projector to show your 2-perf print if the film festival that wants to screen your movie requests a 4-perf print or a DCP?

[Tyler Purcell]

Well the idea is to change the paradigm. The current system isn't working. Prints look worse today then they have in the past because the projection equipment is antiquated. If you build a new style of projection that removes things like the platter brain which is one of the leading causes of film scratches, you've made a huge difference. If you remove the projectionist splicing multiple reels together, you also reduce the amount of scratches. These are things that need to happen if projection is to be saved. Otherwise, film projection will die, not due to lack of quality, but simply because nobody cares. If something isn't done soon, it will be too late before things are changed.

 

The idea would be to make a fleet of projectors and rent/lease them to theaters and filmmakers for peanuts.

[Tyler Purcell]

We assume that most people don't care about the images they see on a cinema screen. 2K with aliasing and all the rest. But maybe they really do and just stay silent. They maybe decide next time to stay at home and watch a better image on their 4K TV.

They do care. The 70mm screenings of Interstellar, Hateful Eight and Batman V Superman, made a considerable dent for limited theaters. People want to see something different/unusual and that's why film WILL make a comeback, even if it's limited.

 

And what about 4K projection ? To me and probably others it just looks flat and uninteresting on big screens. 8K ? I've never seen it so can't comment.

Well most theaters in the US are still 2k. Most content is being distributed in 2k. Most theaters no longer have projectionists either. The pixel issue with digital projection is so big, projectionists have learned to de-focus the image to help. If that's the solution, we're in big trouble.

 

35mm projection suffered about 10 years ago because it was run by non-projectionists.

Well... most of the problems started way before then however. Most real projectionists say the move from double projectors to platter systems was the first nail in the coffin. The platter systems have a tendency to scratch film and when you assemble reels, the splices can be a problem as well. There is also far more tendency for dirt to get on the film when it's running through the air across a room and into the projector. The vast majority of theaters, don't have de-static wheels before and after the projector to help fight dirt pickup. So things were already falling apart in the 90's, but your right, it really started getting bad right before the switch to digital. Mostly because people saw the writing on the wall and there were less people running them, thanks to the union fee's. The numbers I've heard are projectionists rates are around $1000/day for an 8hr shift. Theaters just can't afford that.

 

And the nail in the coffin was anamorphic lenses.

I disagree... anamorphic lenses have been around since the 60's and they work great. It's a HUGE benefit for 35mm. The Hateful Eight problem was related to poor manufacturing and only half of the lenses suffered problems. They just weren't tested enough and likewise, there were issues.

 

And gaining quality at the same time.

Good 4 perf anamorphic is far better then 2 perf spherical.

 

2-perf was awful when it was first introduced in the 60s

IDK, the Sergio Leone films look pretty good.

[Kenny N Suleimanagich]

I watched a theatrical IB print of "Once Upon A Time in the West" a few years ago that, besides being a bit beat up, looked great.

[Doug Palmer]

Tyler, my point about anamorphic lenses was not that they aren't good, but that they need some skill to be focused and lined up properly in conjunction with the projection lens. And this was clearly lacking in the last 35mm scope outings I experienced where a skilled projectionist definitely wasn't around. Anamorphics will obviously carry on with serious 35mm screenings of scope prints in 4-perf.

 

You say 4-perf scope quality is superior to spherical 2-perf, but surely it also depends on the lenses and general look of the film. Grain size may be smaller, but spherical camera-lenses absorb less light and in 2-perf offer far greater depth of field, if that's needed. So less problems with holding focus on faces and so on. And as you say some of the 2-perf westerns looked good despite grainier film stock in those days, maybe they used the very slowest available I don't know. Or maybe the labs had by then perfected high quality scope transfers. I was talking about the very first Techniscopes being bad.

 

I hadn't realised about the dust issue. So I presume Imax projectors have this de-static wheel ? Myself I haven't noticed too much in the way of scratches on prints. I've got quite a few used trailers and it's amazing how pristine they look. But I can see the advantage in having an enclosed core of film. And with 2-perf it doesn't need to be big and cumbersome. I really dislike the current trend of screening 2 and a half hour films- and longer- without a break. Intermissions should be made law :huh:

[Tyler Purcell]

Yea here in California, 35mm projection was really good until the day it died. However, in other places it was bad. Today, I haven't seen a decent 35mm screening (outside of special events where someone cares) in years. I have seen decent 70mm though and a lot of it, which is pretty nice.

 

IMAX does have de-static rollers, it also blows air at each frame to help keep it clean. Plus, they've developed technology from the ground up, rather then 30's technology that's been slightly modified over the years.

 

35mm projection hasn't changed much since sound on film. We still use the same frame size, same intermediate sprocket for pull down, same gate design, same shutter design, heck even the lensing is similar. Really the only updates made to 4 perf 35mm projection have been anamorphic, digital audio and platter systems.

 

IMAX was a new system in 1970, it was developed from the ground up to be excellent and it is the best system.

[David Mullen ASC]

One reason we are stuck with 4-perf 35mm projection is that the widescreen revolution of the 1950's happened just after the courts ruled that the studios had to divest themselves of their theaters in the U.S. This meant instituting new projection formats depended on the theater owners getting behind the change, so easier changes like anamorphic lenses and 1.85 masks for widescreen were more acceptable and affordable to theater owners than installing, let's say, 8-perf VistaVision projectors or 70mm. It's no different today, which is why I think a new 35mm projector that does 2-perf and 3-perf is more or less a non-starter, there is almost no financial incentive for theater owners to buy one. A private filmmaker could perhaps buy one, but then they'd have to haul it around and install it when they wanted to screen their 2-perf and 3-perf prints, something that even film festivals are loathe to let the filmmaker do, let alone first-run theaters.

 

Believe me, proposed formats like 2-perf and 3-perf 35mm print projection date way back, I think there was even a proposal made for a 2-perf print format in 1930 and 3-perf was suggested both in the 1950's and the 1970's.

 

Truth is that perhaps it was also a good thing that theater technology got "frozen" in the 1950's at the time the studios gave up their theaters because I read that one studio was thinking of developing and installing early video projection as a cost-saving idea.

[Tyler Purcell]

David, you're 100% correct and I wholeheartedly agree that it's a non-starter. However, my projector would be backwards compatible with 4 perf AND I wouldn't sell anything to anyone. I'd just have lease/rental deals and they would be super inexpensive. Honestly, I'd much rather make a 2 perf camera anyway. I think there is a much bigger market for one.

[Doug Palmer]

I watched a theatrical IB print of "Once Upon A Time in the West" a few years ago that, besides being a bit beat up, looked great.

Arguably it would have looked even better as a spherical 2-perf print, avoiding the optical blowup.

 

For so many years we had the army of zombies staring at changeover cues, replacd by a smaller army of hernia sufferers lifting huge rolls of film. 35mm storage can't compete with digital naturally, but the size and weight of 2-perf would seem to be a happy medium.

 

 

 

Believe me, proposed formats like 2-perf and 3-perf 35mm print projection date way back, I think there was even a proposal made for a 2-perf print format in 1930 and 3-perf was suggested both in the 1950's and the 1970's.

 

 

Amazing. But then 4-perf was completely standard everywhere so no incentive. Today film is nearly gone from cinemas, yet many people silently pine for that film screening experience.

 

2-perf shooting clearly has some advantages apart from cost. Cameras probably quieter-running. Lenses faster as they are spherical and of shorter focal length. Therefore more incentive to shoot on 50D, avoiding the grainier stocks.

[Doug Palmer]

Thanks for the detailed explanation!

 

Upon further research I am now trying to go another route:

The projection will be on a Kinoton lab projector, which is supposed to be able to screen 3-perf with a simple flick of a switch.

I'm planning to make a 3-perf (rather than a 4-perf) positive and just screen this way.

 

If all checks out this is supposed to be a simpler route.

Let us know Gleb how this turns out.

I hope this lab projector will have enough light. At least the sound won't be an issue.

It seems rather a shame that 3-perf, along with its cousin 2-perf, usually has to go through extra stages of conversion to 4-perf for any kind of film projection.