Is it possible that Almost Famous Bootleg is bad? (1 Viewer)

[Bergan Peters]

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?

 

[Derek Miner]

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.

 

[cafink]

Why exactly is that?

 

[Vince Maskeeper]

Why exactly is that?

The editing section on the T2 disc does a really good job of explaining why that happens- it has to do with the pysical process of cutting afilm and onding the negatives.

-Vince

 

[Ken Seeber]

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.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

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.

Not to lessen the blow to Mr. Storaro about the destruction of his work, but it's not quite as bad... the original version could be recreated exactly. They'd just have to use a further generation print... a show print or what not, to get the missing frames and slice them back in. So all isn't lost.

It does seem strange that Coppola would use the original camera negative though... surely it would have been easier to make a new print from the original camera negative and work from that?

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

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?

 

[Gordon McMurphy]

I can't believe that Coppola re-cut the original camera negative. :frowning: 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!
Gordy