|
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Short reels
|
|
|
John Walsh
Film God
Posts: 2490
From: Connecticut, USA, Earth, Milky Way
Registered: Oct 1999
|
posted 11-20-1999 11:00 AM
In the 70mm version of "ApN" there were no credits, just a little copyright notice in the corner after the fade out.The three versions I've seen: 70mm (on opening day at the Zig!): no credits except for above. You were given a program booklet, which I still have. 35mm version: (Over F.F.C.'s objections) shots of the village being destroyed from air strike while regular end credits appear. VHS version: Regular end credits only.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Johanna Innes
Film Handler
Posts: 15
From: Formerly of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 11-21-1999 07:22 PM
We had a Polish film festival at the theater I work at. What a nightmare.Instead of coming in the usual 2-3 reel cans, the movies came with each reel in an individual tin. The reels were on cores (instead of actual reels), and each reel was only around 10 minutes long. The longest of the three movies we got was 33 reels (yes, 33). As if that wasn't bad enough, the film was old, brittle, dirty, and we don't have a split reel. Oh, and did I mention that the Polish community group called us on Thursday night and told us they'd need the prints to ship out by the next morning at 7? Gotta love those 4 AM nights in the booth.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 12-05-2001 07:25 AM
This topic has come up before - if you do a search for 'annoyingly short reels' under subject only, that will find the thread. The explanation given (by Bill Carter) was that: quote:
Generally, shorter reels like that mean that the film was changed/shortened after negative cutting had already begun.
Usually, the physical number of reels is "carved in stone" once the negative cutter begins conforming the camera negative. Changes may still be made within a reel, but footages per reel generally don't get rebalanced. Once the cutter has made certain shots "head" and "tail" shots for the various reels, that can be difficult to change. Major handling of camera negative like that is avoided as much as possible, because of the potential for wear and damage.
Everyone showing 'Kadosh' has my sympathy. Makes the last scene from 'Dancer in the Dark' look like light entertainment! On the issue of older films being on 1,000ft reels, this is at least partly to do with fireproof spoolboxes that are built to withstand being nuked by so much nitrate but no more. In this country some (but not all) local councils insisted that nitrate film be run on reels no longer than 1,000 feet, but needless to say almost all modern reprints are 'doubled up'.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bill Carter
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 162
From: Minneapolis, Minnesota
Registered: Sep 1999
|
posted 12-06-2001 10:34 AM
I believe the 1,000' reel was standard in America until about 1933. Before that, 1,000' reels were the standard for shipping and projection.1,000' reels remained the standard in the cutting room and the lab until fairly recent times. Until probably the 1960's, the release prints from the lab were spliced together onto 2,000 footers at the local exchanges. Even after labs started delivering prints on 2,000' reels, you still often had a physical splice in the middle and, depending on the lab, sometimes cue marks.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stefan Scholz
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 223
From: Schoenberg, Germany
Registered: Sep 1999
|
posted 12-07-2001 05:32 PM
My brochure on the Phillips FP 3 portable projector states 1000 ft magazines as standard due to local fire regulations "in most counties". Actually all projectors I saw were 2000 ft or, when built after 1957, 6000 ft.
One reel over here was actually 1000 ft, for fire safety on nitrate film. Late 1920's, with arrival of slower burning film, a standard reel became 2 "acts" or 2000 ft. It was still considered illegal to rum more than 2000 ft before 1958, even though safety film was used from early 1950's. 6000 ft magazines had to be equipped with a limiting bolt to barely fit a 2000" house reel.The last film I ran, that made me furious was "Moulin Rouge. It came in 2 shipping boxes, and 9 reels. The film easily fit into 5 cans, this procedure would have saved 50 % shipping costs.
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Walsh
Film God
Posts: 2490
From: Connecticut, USA, Earth, Milky Way
Registered: Oct 1999
|
posted 12-08-2001 02:10 AM
I think the worst "Short Reels" story I heard was from a friend, who used to work at an advertising agency in NYC, and screened TV commericals. He worked there in the middle 1970's.He would have to thread up a projector and three mag dubbers (one for dialogue, one for music, and one for effects.) The projector would not go backwards, so he had to rewind that film. The dubbers would go backwards, but not synchronously, so he had to watch, stop and put each one at their sync points, while trying to rewind the picture and then re-thread it. The advertising hotshots would be telling him to hurry up and show it again... all for only 30sec worth of action.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic