Bay Typo?

Yesterday morning Deadline‘s Nikki Finke posted a letter that Transformers 3 director Michael Bay recently sent to projectionists. The letter urged them to project the 3D version of the film at super-bright levels to combat the underwhelming “dark, dingy” appearance of 3D films that viewers have been complaining about.


Bay’s letter to projectionists about Transformers 3 light levels for optimum 3D projection.

“We have also created a new ‘Platinum 6 version‘ of Transformers,” Bay wrote, “for the ultimate in 3D experience, to be played in auditoriums capable of 6-foot lamberts of light on the screen (available to certified auditoriums only).”

Maybe I’m not understanding something about 3D light. The SMPTE standard for optimum desired light levels on 2D films is 16 foot lamberts, not 6. Maybe 6 foot lamberts is regarded as a good thing under 3D conditions, but in my world 6 foot lamberts isn’t satisfactory.

The obvious answer would be that the person who typed up Bay’s letter typed a typo and nobody caught it. Obviously not a biggie, but try and get someone at Paramount Pictures or at Bay’s agency, WME, to confirm or address this and say “uh, yeah, that does appear to be a typo — it should have said 16 and not 6. Thanks for catching it.” I’ve been trying to get an answer since 9 this morning and nobody will say anything.

So let’s just repeat that the foot-lambert information doesn’t sound right (to me anyway) and appears to be wrong and let it go at that.

And if you want an extra layer of evidence, Stanley Kubrick sent a letter to projectionists in 1975 about showing Barry Lyndon, and it said that the film should be shown “at no less than 15 foot lamberts and no more than 18.” Here’s a capture of the portion of the letter that applies:

I’ve decided, by the way, to see Transformers 3D at an IMAX 3D screening tomorrow night at IMAX headquarters in Santa Monica and not at one of the screenings happening today on the Paramount lot. I’m figuring the IMAX 3D will deliver much more impact, etc.

Posted at by

30 thoughts on “Bay Typo?”

  1. David Lynch wrote projectionists a note for how to properly matte Mulholland Dr.

    For Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me he asked them to turn the volume up

    Reply ↓

  2. Plus that slacker Bay didn’t once mention the aspect ratio. How is Jett going to deliver the smackdown in 2047 on some Bay hanger-on when the 4D holographic ultra collector’s edition of Transformers 3 is released in 1-1:78?

    Reply ↓

  3. I was a projectionist until about a year ago. Studios put notes like that in the cans all the time. I remember Michael Mann’s note in PUBLIC ENEMIES was so short and pretension-free I didn’t believe he wrote it.

    Reply ↓

  5. Digital 3-D is set for under 6fl. Sorry, no typo from Bay or Paramount on this one.

    “Standard brightness for a 2D digital cinema system is 14 foot-lamberts, measured off the screen. [b]About 75%-90% of the light is lost in 3D, so the informal standard for 3D systems is 3.5 FL, measured through the glasses. That’s the light level for which 3D pics are color graded.[/b]

    The special DCPs for “Transformers 3″ have been graded for 6 FL, almost twice the brightness of the usual 3D standard. By comparison, the dual-projector Imax Digital system averages only 5.5 FL for 3D.”

    http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118038975?refcatid=13&printerfriendly=true

    Reply ↓

  6. Damn…. JLC again! Slowly working his/her way into my HE Poster top five

    (the rest of the note)

    And please make sure that you turn the volume to its highest level, thus ensuring maximum cacophony. Also, (as a side benefit), it will disturb the viewing enjoyment of all those pencil neck, braniac pussies in the adjoining multiplex screens trying to watch their faggoty-assed bullshit foreign independent movies. Fuck yeah!

    - Bay

    Reply ↓

  7. Nope… in fact, not a typo at all.

    6 foot lamberts would be ideal… for 3D features. I don’t think there’s any possible way to show a 3D movie using a typical digital projector at 16 foot lamberts… even 6 is atypical, hence the “special” instructions.

    “In fact, a typical 3D system can lose as much as 80 percent or more of the light from a 2D system on the same screen, and result in an image projected at only two or three foot-lamberts.”

    http://www.thewrap.com/movies/column-post/3d-progress-lost-dark-19392

    Reply ↓

  9. One joy of working for Variety: we’re not trying to be a consumer rag or tabloid glamourista publication, but instead focusing on the real meat and potatoes of the industry, which is why a great reporter like Variety’s David Cohen is miles ahead of everyone else in the media on the issue of 3D and digital projection opportunities and woes.

    Reply ↓

  10. Phil: to be clear from the tone of the letter, do NOT read “Let’s make the audience believe again” as the following:

    “Let’s make the audience believe in the power of movies as the perfect escapist entertainment!”

    Yes, that is cheesy. But also incorrect. More accurately, read it as:

    “Let’s make the audience believe again that 3D is worth shelling out 3 to 5 extra bucks per ticket, or these expensive 3D movies are going to stop being a cash cow!”

    Reply ↓

  11. “The letter urged them to project the 3D version of the film at super-bright levels to combat the underwhelming “dark, dinghy” appearance of 3D films that viewers have been complaining about. “

    I totally get where Jeff is going with this, it’s like, you know, a movie projected onto the side of small, dark boat….
    :-P

    Reply ↓

  12. Anyone here know what the best Chicago area theater for TF3 would be? I’m stoically resigned to seeing this near certain debacle and want to have at least a stellar technical presentation.

    I’m thinking it’s got to be either Navy Pier IMAX, River East or Muvico Rosemont 18 – and wonder if apart from the audio and huge size, the IMAX is actually a downgrade in visual quality.

    Reply ↓

  13. Why would IMAX downgrade visual quality? I’d prefer IMAX, but received passes to tonight’s Rivers East screening, where at least a new bright bulb was promised. I can report on quality after.

    Reply ↓

  14. I think the large format IMAX like the one at Navy Pier (not their mini “fake” IMAX digital experince) could be a visual downgrade for any film that isn’t actually filmed on IMAX film. The sheer size and spectacle, and the crazy over the top sound that IMAX offers probably makes up for it though.

    Reply ↓

  15. Why does Wells link to a letter written nearly 40 years ago to prove his point about 3D DCP brightness levels? That’s really a head-scratcher.

    This whole “6 foot-lambert” is a crock. Do you know how theaters are able to get to 6 fl on their 3D projectors? Bigger bulbs. You know what happens with bigger bulbs? They aren’t rated properly for the equipment and can short out. Hell, they might even burn the place down. Now that’s an action movie!

    Reply ↓

  16. I’m picturing Lex’s proposed sketch, from last week’s “Kubrick: A Note to the Projectionists” post, of the typical “spike-gelled boy Filipino projectionist in the Valley” getting this note from Bay and his reaction thereto….and just giggling.

    Best sustained reaction to an old comment in a while…..

    Reply ↓

  18. just got back from TDOTM and while the movie was, well, loud and long, the projection was a different issue …. the theater, which I think has some of the best projection in town by the way (edwards marq*e) had switched the digital print to another house and this caused a glitch in the software …. the film has a digital code that corresponds to a specific projector, so as this theater has 24 projectors and the print was on the wrong projector there was downtime …. ONE HOUR AND TEN MINIUTES sitting in the dark waiting tor the film to start…. I saw Leydon walk out with his wife at the 55-minute mark …. I talked to the manager in charge afterwards. I asked him why it took so long to get the correct code … he told me they were in contact immediately with the 24/7 troubleshooting 3D hotline but that it literally took that 70-minutes for all the bells and whistles to be cleared in order to re-send the code … how does this bode for the future of digital cinema?

    Reply ↓

  19. So saw at Rivers East. The picture was fine and bright, but sloghtly less crisp than Jackass 3D at Ikon. Can’t really go wrong at Ikon; best theater in the city.

    As far as the movie, it still revolves around 30′ robots that fight each other like armed ninjas, which means Jeffrey will hate it. I did not appreciate the length. My eyes needed several breaks. I did appreciate Ms. RHW. She steals every scene, and is terribly missed any time she’s absent in the first half. She’s like Diaz in The Mask, only flawless times 20, and in 3D.

    Reply ↓

  24. I didn’t think Jeff would correct this post. Between this and the “Bygone” post, it’s pretty clear that technical details are not in his wheelhouse.

    Reply ↓

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>