hughes@mother.DEC (Gary Hughes - CSSE uVAX & AI Systems Group) (05/08/84)
For lots of movies there are different prints produced for cinema and TV
consumption. These can differ in running times as well as other minor
changes to deal with different screen aspect ratios etc.
Occasionally, a director or producer will refuse to make some of these
changes as in the case of 'Manhattan'. If you watch it on TV you will
notice that it is shown in the original aspect ratio.
Not all mods make the movie shorter either. The Tv print for Star Trek:TMP
is actually longer than the film using some not quite correctly edited
footage of one of the airlocks (see Starlog for details). As to what gets
onto video cassette - all I can say is the version release on cassette in
Australia (probably all PAL viewing regions) is the cimena print.
Gary
UUCP: ...{ decvax | allegra | ucbvax }!decwrl!rhea!mother!hughes
ARPA: hughes%mother.DEC @decwrl.ARPA
reality?: DEC, ZKO1-2/C07, 110 Spit Brook Rd, Nashua NH 03062lincoln@eosp1.UUCP (Dick Lincoln) (05/09/84)
> For lots of movies there are different prints produced for cinema and > TV consumption. These can differ in running times as well as other > minor changes to deal with different screen aspect ratios etc. In the TV presentation of various "movie prints", sometimes I notice large problems in hue balance and color intensity - often the greens and blues are "hyped" enough that I can't compensate enough with my TV's controls (a good Sony TV, too) to produce an even approximately realistic picture. Flesh tones are "hard orange". Generally the older movies are the worst while "pure TV" taped shows are in excellent color balance. Any comments?
ntt@dciem.UUCP (Mark Brader) (05/10/84)
I have read that the poor color frequently seen in older movies is due to deterioration of the film. If you look at, for instance, a Kodak box, you'll see a disclaimer to the effect that Kodak won't warrant the color dyes against changing with time. Unfortunately, the change seems to be in the direction of weakening both red and green, which is "perpendicular" to the direction that the red-vs-green control on normal color TVs works. This problem can be cured by special processing, but it is very expensive. Mark Brader
msc@qubix.UUCP (Mark Callow) (05/11/84)
> Generally the older movies are the worst while "pure TV" taped shows > are in excellent color balance. Any comments? Film prints fade over the years especially when not stored correctly. That is why the colour on old films varies from mediocre to non-existent. Also I believe the colour balance used to be adjusted for the significantly blue light of carbon-arc projection lamps. I assume you really mean "pure TV" *filmed* shows. Videotapes are quite different and can vary just as much though in different ways. -- From the TARDIS of Mark Callow msc@qubix.UUCP, decwrl!qubix!msc@Berkeley.ARPA ...{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!decwrl!qubix!msc, ...{ittvax,amd70}!qubix!msc "I'm a citizen of the Universe, and a gentleman to boot!"
burt@axiom.UUCP (Burt Janz) (05/14/84)
<bug bug bug bu
The reason that so many older tv movie prints look so bad and
the flesh tones are "hard orange" has to do with the dyes used at
that time in the film itself. Many of the non-mylar based film stocks
of the 50s and 60s used dyes which, because they were not cared for,
had a tendency to redden. Notable examples are the Star Trek tv shows.
If your local rerun king has Star Trek, and isn't using the newer taped
releases, you will notice that the film has a red tint. This is due
to the dye changing.
With the change in the 70s to mylar based stock, and the development
of newer dyes, the problem with reddening has almost disappeared.
By the way, many of the major studios are re-printing their older
films on newer stock. This isn't just for re-release. Many of them are
making newer 16mm prints for release to studios, schools, tv stations, etc.
The negatives were (in most cases) stored in controlled environments which
preserved their original condition.
(Now, if someone sees a black-and-white film which is turning
into a color print....:-) )
Burt Janz @ Axiom Technology, Newton MA
617-965-8010jab@uokvax.UUCP (05/17/84)
#R:eosp1:-86700:uokvax:3900031:000:1329 uokvax!jab May 17 00:06:00 1984 /***** uokvax:net.movies / eosp1!lincoln / 2:52 am May 10, 1984 */ > For lots of movies there are different prints produced for cinema and > TV consumption. These can differ in running times as well as other > minor changes to deal with different screen aspect ratios etc. In the TV presentation of various "movie prints", sometimes I notice large problems in hue balance and color intensity - often the greens and blues are "hyped" enough that I can't compensate enough with my TV's controls (a good Sony TV, too) to produce an even approximately realistic picture. Flesh tones are "hard orange". /* ---------- */ Having an RCA, I don't notice the obvious things like colors; I notice things like i) Animal House - the "network TV" version had Bluto watch a pillow fight between the sorority girls who were wearing bras and slips; the version at the cinema didn't have the bras; ii) Close Encounters, Superman, and Superman II have all had footage added by ABC that wasn't in the version you paid your nickels for. See older articles for the details. They will record two versions of something (Animal House) or re-edit the movie, sometimes both. I don't mind either, except that I would prefer that the original editor get to do the work, to keep the flow of the movie constant. Jeff Bowles Lisle, IL
jrb@wdl1.UUCP (jrb ) (05/21/84)
#R:decwrl:-777300:wdl1:1500001:000:372 wdl1!jrb May 14 08:16:00 1984 The colour fading also has to do with the process used to get the colour. The Technicolour(R) 3-colour separation process holds up well (take a look at the 1930s Disney cartoons) but is expensive. The other processes used to-day will start to fade in less than two years. John R Blaker UUCP: ...!fortune!wdl1!jrb ARPA: jrb@FORD-WDL1 blaker@FORD-WDL2