Is it possible that Almost Famous Bootleg is bad?

Discussion in 'Archived Threads 2001-2004' started by Bergan Peters, Dec 8, 2001.

  1. Bergan Peters

    Bergan Peters Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2001
    Messages:
    145
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I am a critical viewer in that I have good eyesight, not that I could tell the difference between progessive and interlaced, so I don't know if I was the only one that saw this, BUT, in my Almost Famous Bootleg edition, on the bootleg cut, it appears they cut double frames into the movie twice:

    Once when Penny Lane is in the field, I believe, im not positive, but it's somewhere near her birthday scene.

    and SECONDLY this one im positive of, when faizura balks character is seated eating at the WAY end of the movie, it is also double cut (In that it shows the same frame twice)

    Anyone else see this?
     
  2. Derek Miner

    Derek Miner Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 1999
    Messages:
    1,663
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I remember seeing something at the points in the film you mention, but I thought they were missing frames. This is a phenomenon you can see in extended films such as Aliens: Special Edition. When they cut together the negative, a frame on each side of the shot is lost. When they go back and retrieve the rest of the shot to extend it, that frame is gone forever.
     
  3. cafink

    cafink Producer

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 1999
    Messages:
    3,043
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Real Name:
    Carl Fink
    Why exactly is that?
     
  4. Vince Maskeeper

    Vince Maskeeper Producer

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 1999
    Messages:
    6,499
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
     
  5. Ken Seeber

    Ken Seeber Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 1999
    Messages:
    787
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If you don't want to dig out your copy of T2, I'll take a shot at an explanation.

    Splicing negatives together with transparent adhesive splices (cold splicing) is temporary. The tape and adhesives will age and eventually come apart. To permanently splice a negative, filmmakers use a technique called hot splicing.

    The frame of film beyond where a shot is to end is cut right through the middle, leaving literally half a frame. The frame of film right before the next shot is to start is similarly cut in half. Those two half-frames are melted and compressed together, fusing the negative together. The downside is that frames of film have been permanently destroyed.

    When a director later chooses to re-edit a film this can present problems.

    If a new scene or shot is inserted, you'll lose one frame from the existing shot, but you won't notice a jump because you're going into a whole new shot. But if an existing shot is simply being extended --- allowed to run longer than it did originally --- then you will notice a slight jump where there is a frame missing between the old and new footage.

    I have several DVDs that are this way. "The Abyss" and "Last of the Mohicans" are obvious examples. Fox even included a note with LOTM that warned there would be jumps.

    I read an interview with cinematographer Vittorio Storaro, where he talked about Francis Ford Coppola re-editing "Apocalypse Now" into "Apocalypse Now Redux." He said that, because Coppola was re-editing the actual camera negative, the original version of the film was lost forever because frames had to be destroyed to do so. Storaro said the thought of it actually made him cry.
     
  6. Adam Lenhardt

    Adam Lenhardt Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2001
    Messages:
    18,412
    Likes Received:
    2,834
    Trophy Points:
    9,110
    Location:
    Albany, NY
     
  7. Adam Lenhardt

    Adam Lenhardt Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2001
    Messages:
    18,412
    Likes Received:
    2,834
    Trophy Points:
    9,110
    Location:
    Albany, NY
    Also, couldn't this phenomina be easily covered up by just copying the frames on either side, setting one at 50% transparency and merging them? Sure, that would introduce an artifact of it's own, but wouldn't it still be less jarring than a jump?
     
  8. Gordon McMurphy

    Gordon McMurphy Producer

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2002
    Messages:
    3,530
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I can't believe that Coppola re-cut the original camera negative. [​IMG] Bad move, says I. I like the original 153 minute version. There's too much of Brando in Redux. Kilgore's legendary last scene is now tarnished with his surfboard jabberings. The Playboy Bunnies scenes are a bridge too far. The 'French Plantation' scenes are good though and raise some interesting questions.
    And has Storaro ever said why he recomposes his anamorphic films from 2.40:1 to 2.00:1? The DVD editions of Apocalypse and Tucker (Both were shot in Technovision) are 2.00:1 and I know it's down to Vittorio. Maybe it's because of the deep letterboxing on 4:3 Tvs, but the letterboxing is not as deep on 16:9 TVs. It's quite bizarre to shoot a film in anamorphic and then re-format to 2:1. If he wanted a less-wide ratio, surely it would have been best to revive VistaVision! :wink: A Special Edition DVD of Apocalypse Now is aparently in the works and I'd like to see it given a 2.40:1 anamorphic transfer.
    But Storaro is a great cinematographer and I respect and admire the things he can do. The 2:1 thing has just always niggled me a bit! [​IMG]
    Gordy
     

Share This Page