[Richard W. Haines]

The trouble with attending megaplexes is that they are not showing optimum quality prints like they
do in Hollywood. For industry screenings, they play "Showprints". For general audiences they
show "High Speed IN Prints". What's the difference? Showprints are copies struck directly from
the camera negative which is the best you can get and made at slow printing speeds with
contrast adjustments (making night scenes darker and day time scenes brighter). They're also known as 'first generation prints'.


High speed prints are made from internegatives three generations removed from the camera negative
at speeds in excess of 2000 feet per minute. They're barely getting an exposure at that rate and
no contrast adjustments are possible. The prints are made on a 'one lite' setting. The method
is to first make a fine grain positive from the camera negative ("IP"), then make an internegative
from that ("IN") then crank out thousands of release copies quickly with little, if any, quality control
and ship them to theaters. DVDs are mastered from first generation materials (the "IP") and sometimes
from the camera negative itself which is why they look sharper, have better color and are finer grain.
Of course the resolution is not as good as film but the overall image quality is because DVD distributors
really care about what they look like and theatrical distributors don't. The poor quality of the release
prints isn't the theater owners fault. They can only project what they are supplied with.
It's interesting to note that no DVD distributor would ever master a film from the copies shown in
megaplexes. The quality isn't good enough and they would be rejected.


So if you want to see a top quality print projected in a theater, you'll have to go to Hollywood or a film festival or some trade screening for critics.



It wasn't always like this. Before 1968, they used to show exclusively camera negative prints in theaters. However, this wore out the negative so they developed CRI duplicate negative stock
that year and later IP/IN stock. The trade off was a loss of resolution and quality in the final release print. This only applies to Eastmancolor and the labs that processed it like De Luxe, Metrocolor,
Pathe, Warnercolor etc. Technicolor was another process entirely and used for many big budget
films until 1975 when that lab shut down the process and switched to Eastmancolor like the other
facilities. For Technicolor films, the negative was only used to make a set of matrices which were
three printing plates on film (in black and white in relief like a rubber stamp impression). Each
matrix represented one color. Then the three matrices were coated with dye and each color was
wiped onto the blank film layer by layer. It was expensive and time consuming but the final release print
had much better color and contrast than an Eastmancolor print and never faded. People called it
"Glorious Technicolor" and it really was. It was the only
process that offered mass produced first generation copies that didn't damage the negative.


Technicolor was briefly revived from 1997-2001 then they shut down the machines again due to lack
of industry interest. Part of the problem was that the people in Hollywood always see first generation
prints and are either unaware (or don't care) what the rest of the country sees.



In 1989 there was still a Technicolor lab in China that offered dye transfer printing. I traveled there to make 'Glorious Technicolor' prints of my third feature film, "Space Avenger" in
the process which was the only American movie to utilize it from 1975 through 1997.




Backing up a bit, while the 35mm prints were sub-standard after the demise of Technicolor in 1975, there was one other format that offered excellent quality which was 70mm. Whether the film was
photographed in 65mm or shot in 35mm and blown up to 70mm, they were usually camera negative prints.
The camera negative 70mm blow ups of "Star Wars" and "Superman" looked great and were much better
than the 35mm high speed copies made at the same time. Theaters that
showed 70mm films made more money than the 35mm cinemas showing the same picture. Although they
didn't know the technical details, most audiences noticed the quality difference. In the mid-nineties,
exhibitors started building megaplexes and none of them installed the 70mm projectors so the format
was eliminated with the exception of IMAX films and an occasional revival like "Lawrence of Arabia". The last new feature to be released in 70mm was "Titanic" in 1997.


So, I rarely go to megaplexes any more because I can see better quality projecting a DVD on my DLP.
I attend film festivals or trade screenings if possible so I can watch 'Showprints'.