Film-Tech Cinema Systems
Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE


  
my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » Static!!! (Page 3)

 
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3 
 
Author Topic: Static!!!
Christopher A Kerr
Film Handler

Posts: 43
From: Oakville, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Sep 1999


 - posted 01-30-2000 06:15 PM      Profile for Christopher A Kerr   Email Christopher A Kerr   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
On the subject of failsafes, I have had fairly good luck so far (Knock on wood) . I am not sure of the make and model, but they work by sensing any tension at the top of the feed side of the platter tree which will move a roller and trip a microswitch. They are wired to shut down the takeup platter. The platter slowly comes to a stop and the rewind plate drops. Once the plate hits the bottom, it shuts off the projector motor and the lamp. Any tension more than about 2 wraps of brainwrap will trip the sensor. I do occasionally get accidental show stoppages if the tension peaks for a short time, but any time I have actually had a serious brainwrap, The projector has shut down before any serious equipment damage of film burnout.

Cheers
Chris

 |  IP: Logged

Randy Stankey
Film God

Posts: 6539
From: Erie, Pennsylvania
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 01-31-2000 03:35 PM      Profile for Randy Stankey   Email Randy Stankey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I've looked into wiring up the motion sensor in series with the presence sensor. The green "Ready" light won't come on. The proj. will run correctly, otherwise.

Some of the people I work with couldn't comprehend this and would just be walking around with their thumbs up their ass! I tried making a modification to the automation once before and I had to undo it.

I thought that there could be a device with a logic gate in it, or something... It's ON when the presence is on until the motion comes on them it's off when either one drops out. In other words an OR gate until motion, then AND. It'd have an indicator on it that'd tell you which one dropped out.

As for the film STILL getting damaged, yes, I agree but it's better than nothing!

 |  IP: Logged

Christopher Seo
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 530
From: Los Angeles, CA
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 02-01-2000 05:48 PM      Profile for Christopher Seo   Email Christopher Seo   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I think the one thing polyester has going for it is its chemical stability. I find it interesting that everyone here probably has some interest in film preservation, yet no one has addressed the decomposition of acetate stock. Of course, I doubt that mainstream exhibitors would really care whether a print survives beyond its short initial release, so this cannot be why they pushed polyester.

 |  IP: Logged

Scott Norwood
Film God

Posts: 8146
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 02-01-2000 07:03 PM      Profile for Scott Norwood   Author's Homepage   Email Scott Norwood   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Christopher makes a good point about polyester--it doesn't (as far as we know) turn to dust like nitrate or turn vinegar like acetate.

Personally, I'm pretty indifferent to polyester, if not slightly partial to it. This is probably because I've never had to deal with platters and "brain wraps" and other horrors. The only exception would be the godawful Eastman B&W ESTAR-base stock that, nine times out of ten, sheds white dust all over the place, even when running 20-minute reels. This may be a lab problem, though...I've seen some ESTAR-base B&W prints that were fine (Casablanca and Maltese Falcon - 1998 reprints - come to mind, but there are others).

 |  IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000


 - posted 02-02-2000 02:34 PM      Profile for John Pytlak   Author's Homepage   Email John Pytlak   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Polyester base DOES offer many advantages. It is much less subject to chemical attack or deterioration (that's why you can't make cement splices). It also has minimal aging shrinkage, is dimensionally stable with changes in temperature and humidity, and does not require the use of solvents during manufacturing. It can be recycled (it is basically the same plastic that is used for carbonated beverage containers: PETE 1). It's durability and strength are real advantages in reducing tearing and perforation damage, but proper equipment design (e.g., tension-sensing failsafes) is needed to reduce risk in case of a film jam.

Since the 1950's, polyester has been the base of choice for dimensionally critical applications like graphic arts films. The IMAX projection system was designed to take full advantage of its characteristics, and many "special venue" theatres (e.g. Disney World, iWERKS ride films, etc.) prefer polyester for its durability. Many "special venue" prints on Kodak ESTAR base film have lasted tens of thousands of showings.

Compared to previous polyester print films, Kodak's new VISION Color Print Film uses a transparent process-surviving conductive layer to help control static, and a polymeric backing layer to optimize friction and wear characteristics.

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Professional Motion Imaging
Eastman Kodak Company
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com

 |  IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000


 - posted 02-02-2000 03:02 PM      Profile for John Pytlak   Author's Homepage   Email John Pytlak   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Scott:

The B&W prints that had emulsion-side "flaking" were probably not properly lubricated. Kodak has recommended edge-waxing of 35mm prints since 1922! Kodak's processing recommendations (H-24.02) and SMPTE Recommended Practice RP151 specify edge-waxing for optimum print performance. For the same reason you would wax a floor or fine automobile, edge-waxing reduces abrasion of the film surface by the film-contacting components of the projector.

For more information, read: "Lubrication of 35-mm Release Prints for Extended Projection Life" by Edward Mino and Rodney Perry, published in the October 1983 SMPTE Journal.

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Professional Motion Imaging
Eastman Kodak Company
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com

 |  IP: Logged

William Hooper
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1879
From: Mobile, AL USA
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 02-03-2000 03:00 AM      Profile for William Hooper   Author's Homepage   Email William Hooper   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
The IMAX projection system was designed to take full advantage of its characteristics, and many "special venue" theatres (e.g. Disney World, iWERKS ride films, etc.) prefer polyester for its durability.

What has been the experience of the IMAX & other special venues regarding static, compared to mainstream exhibition?

Did they have horrible static teething periods, or, since designed for polyester, did they just do it all by the book (i.e., environmental control, etc.) & have few problems?


 |  IP: Logged

Christopher Seo
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 530
From: Los Angeles, CA
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 02-03-2000 03:59 AM      Profile for Christopher Seo   Email Christopher Seo   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I saw a nearly-brand-new IMAX setup, and their film delivery system, a 5-deck platter, is analogous to conventional platters, except on steroids. I recall the projectionist saying that IMAX prints have been thrown in the past, perhaps due to problems with the older system (although I think their new system was put in just to upgrade to 3D capability), but I'm not sure if any have wrapped.

 |  IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000


 - posted 02-03-2000 08:00 AM      Profile for John Pytlak   Author's Homepage   Email John Pytlak   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
AFAIK, "Static Cling" has not been an issue with IMAX theatres. They have specifications regarding temperature and humidity control, and all have "on-line" film cleaners, usually either PTRs or buffer brushes.

In addition to Gordon McLeod, I'm sure there are some other IMAX projectionists who either participate or "lurk" in Film-Tech Forum. What are your experiences regarding static?

"Fantasia 2000" was the first major IMAX feature printed on the Kodak VISION Color Print Film having the conductive anti-static layer.

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Professional Motion Imaging
Eastman Kodak Company
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com

 |  IP: Logged

Gordon McLeod
Film God

Posts: 9532
From: Toronto Ontario Canada
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 02-03-2000 09:49 AM      Profile for Gordon McLeod   Email Gordon McLeod   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Until very recently all Imax/Iwerks theatres running 15perf 70 used reel to reel (sorry Brad) even though when one looks at booth pictures they are reels lying on there side with on side expossed. In fact they are usually reffered to as platters but they rewind just like reels So the only major static issue was dirt clinging to the field flatner lens. All the new IMAX theatres use a modified Kinotone platter and I have heard of one or two instances of problems but the cause was not mentioned.

The 8 peerf 70 industry has used christie and xetron platters for some time but are all equipped with antistat devices

In the case of 15perf rolling loop operation the use of polyester was mandated from day one mainly because of its dimensional stabability

 |  IP: Logged

John Walsh
Film God

Posts: 2490
From: Connecticut, USA, Earth, Milky Way
Registered: Oct 1999


 - posted 02-05-2000 10:51 AM      Profile for John Walsh   Email John Walsh   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I was looking for any SMPTE articles about Sensurround (didn't find any,) but I did find a survey done by Agfa in 1979 regarding the use of polyster film for regular 35mm projection. Some interesting statements:

1.) "... An additional concern is the greater mechanical strength of polyester film, which could make it more likely to damage equipment: this particular concern was suspected to have a psychological basis in that in many cases there were only unfounded rumours of damage."

2.) [About half of the labs surveyed said that;] "... the use of polyster base film will only grow [in the future] because their customers are pushing them to use it."

"Representing the opinion of the majority, who expect the use of polyster to grow [the lab execuitives surveyed said:] "I see more of it being used. Labs have an aversion to polyster, but the customer wants us to use it even if you tell them triacetate is better..." [another] "... I can see people asking for a longer lasting film, and we would be forced to service them..." [another] "...Eventually, it will be all polyster because of longer life and quality."


See SMPTE Journal: Feb. 1980 (v.89) pp. 106:
"The Use of Polyster Film Base in the Motion Picture Industry- a Market Survey"

 |  IP: Logged



All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3 
 
   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic    next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:



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.

© 1999-2020 Film-Tech Cinema Systems, LLC. All rights reserved.