I inspected a print last night of a 10 year old slasher film that is on reels and in the original shipping cases. All of the heads and tails were perfectly tape spliced. I suspected that something was wrong when R1 started ABRUPTLY with no logo, rating, etc. You know what I found.

Turns out that 5 of 6 reels were just thrown back together and tossed into the can. I'd call the theater on the return label and curse, but it's a little late, eh?

I have to work with unwilling and untrained people. I have to draw "Dick and Jane"-like pictures to get them to understand (thank God there are only 2 ratios to explain!) We get used prints, many of which we had when new. Brad is right; you get what you pay for, and we don't pay very much. So, in the end, a "head projectionist" has to make a decision on how to do something that works out the best, based on what (and whom) he's got to work with. I choose to spend the limited time I have training people on other things (like cleaning and threading) that I think will provide a larger gain.

Hey, if it was just me, I'd leave only one ID frame, but it's not. 6 frames almost guarantees there will be at least one ID frame left for someone later, regardless of how many fools had it in the meantime. And that 'someone' may well be an inexperienced usher at my theater.

My understanding is anything after the 2nd c/o mark is 'extra.' Also, that the industry has changed the audio (pull-ups) from c/o use (where the extra 18 frames for the audio to reach the soundhead) to platter use. The same concept is true for the incomming reel. If there is anything important closer than that to the splice, the editor made a mistake. A note should be left in the can, and I won't cut any ID frames at all.

 |  IP: Logged

If the next bozo builds a print of mine, generally he will cut one frame over thus leaving an ID frame. If he does not and can not properly break a print down, it is he you should turn your attention to, not the first theater that played the flick. ID frames from the first theater have nothing to do with your senario.

Guys,

If you ever get a print without an ID frame and you know you have at least one person in your booth who might break that print down who is lacking in training or missing part of his brain, then leave that original/first frame on the leaders when it is built up! There's your damned ID frame. If you guys are staffed with PROFESSIONALS, then preserve it and peel the tape leaving no ID frames. (I wonder, are these people who are complaining the same people who let the leader hit the floor while threading?)

Contrary to popular belief, there IS important action and audio after that last changeover mark.

Geez guys, get over it. The arguments here for leaving an ID frame on the leaders is about as big of a problem as receiving a print with a reel wound tails up. "Oh shit, this reel isn't heads up, we have no idea how to fix it! We're going to have a dark screen! WAAAAAAAAH!"

Anyhow, you still haven't answered this question Brad, someone mentioned that when movies are edited, they check their work using a changeover system. This means the last frame is NEVER seen when the editors are checking their work. Does this mean the sound is not mixed and the movie edited with this in mind? Would it not mean that leaving that one frame out is actually a service to the studios?

All I know is when I used to cut one frame off the end of each reel, there would be a noticable jump or cut in the sound (even when playing in digital) at the reel changes. With all frames intact, the sound glides through perfectly. I can live with people cutting off 1 ID frame, but there really isn't any reason to cut off more than that. If somebody else down the road cuts that frame off (I don't know why they would) then it is their problem, not the person who originally only cut 1 ID frame off.

I wonder what the film editors think about cutting ID frames off. Steve's post didn't go into that.

No I will NOT leave your precious id frame on. It is STILL butchering the print.

You guys are REALLY wasting your time. There is absolutely nothing you can say to make me alter my practices. I repeat NOTHING. You do it the way you want and I will do it the way I want. Steven Spielberg can come into the booth and ask me to cut off an ID frame when building and I will still look him straight in the face and say NO. Use your arguments on someone else or direct them to the masses via this thread. Instead of wasting my time responding to this thread which is going nowhere, why don't you take that time and teach an operator how to build without the id frames?

I think I've made my stance very clear on this issue. When a print I've played goes back to the depot, every single frame goes back TOGETHER without scratches, dirt or splices of any kind. Do I have to make a little web page showing how to assemble a print without ID frames for everyone who is complaining here to learn how to do it? I've honestly reached the point where I truly believe the guys arguing "for" chopping a frame to save as ID purposes really don't know how. How sad.

>Call me stupid here...

No, this is an open exchange of ideas and no one is calling anyone stupid.

>But if they printed the frame, why not project it? We cut the
>heads and tails like this at make up. If they print it, we
>show it.

I understand your philosophy: One would think that it is somehow a more perfect show to project every single frame. That cutting even one frame off, although an infinitesimal loss is still a loss and perfection requires every frame being there. That's your thinking, right? (Correct me if I'm wrong.)

Well, the point I have been making is that because films are still edited with changeovers in mind and those changeovers by their very nature skip over the very last few frames and the very first few on the new reel it would be difficult to make a case that cutting one off at each end represents any real loss at all. So leaving them in really doesn't make your presentation any more "perfect" and leaving one on each leader adds tremendously to everyone's peace of mind who encounters the print later on.

Brad's thinking is (and he will correct me if I'm wrong) that it represents a loss and he wants no loss, no matter how small and no matter what the benefit to others might be. Having performed many thousands of manual changeovers on thousands of films, both finished prints and editor's workprints or answer prints with interlocked mag soundtracks, some on ten minute reels, I can state flat out that 1 frame at each end represents zero loss. So there you have it: On the one hand the benefits that have been described at length by me and others. On the other hand zero true loss. Benefits vs. no loss. You decide.

>Granted, I am a first run house, but isn't the whole concept of
>leaving one frame on the leader a "moron check" for the next
>exhibitor?

Sort of. I'd call it protection AGAINST morons. Keep in mind that the moron who puts the leaders back on wrong is DONE with the film. It's the person after that who gets screwed. Call it a POST-MORON CHECK.

>Ours are broken down correctly. If you see head one, then you are holding reel one.

Um...ok. Please sign your work so I know that it's one of yours and I can rest easy. Oh, and please do so in a way so that I'll know if anyone had it AFTER you but BEFORE me because your diligence means nothing in that case because the in-between operator could have screwed it up and without the check frames I will have no way to know. Now do you see what we mean?

Maybe you and Brad could have some stickers printed up to use as holddowns that get broken when someone else gets your print. It could say "We solomnly swear that these leaders are on the correct reels."

>It amazes me at what lengths we will go to "idiot proof" our
>process just because we allow "idiots" to handle film.

Yes and no. Sure, this is primarily a protection against morons. But anyone can make a mistake in the wee hours and how wonderful to have a system that protects against that and does so at no cost or loss. The first person who thought to leave a frame on the leader ought to get an Academy Technical Oscar!

>You cannot choose who will handle a print before it arrives
>at your theatre.

>The ident frame is un-necessary so long as the handlers are
>professional.

But combine that thought with your prior line just above and you see why most of us think there IS a need for them. The fact is that you simply DON'T KNOW who had it before you. When you consider that they represent no real loss as I have explained then the argument against them seems vastly misplaced.

And about your Crow example. What I meant by error in the copying is that if the film was edited with the intent that the last frame or two was not meant to be seen, and then whomever transfered the film to video included those frames, technicaly that would be an error. Anyway, if the action 'freezes' at the end of the reels, losing one frame on each end isn't going to make you miss this freeze.

You really need to get with our friend Mr. Guttag, for he is capable of presenting every single frame as Joe mentioned earlier on a changeover system. He has boasted this many times and frankly, he can probably do it! So in that aspect, you are saying he is doing his job improperly? P L E E E A S E!

Steve Kraus wrote:
"Having performed many thousands of manual changeovers on thousands of films, both finished prints and editor's workprints or answer prints with interlocked mag soundtracks, some on ten minute reels, I can state flat out that 1 frame at each end represents zero loss."

Steve, we are all indeed bowing to your great vast repertoire of changeover movies you have ran, but did you never run that little known film Terminator 2? Remember that changeover from reel 2 into 3? Your way ends up as Arnold saying "Knives and stabbing we/" to the doctor saying "/se pictures were taken..." What it SHOULD've gone like is: "Knives and stabbing weapons. These pictures were taken..." How do I know this? Simple. Because back then I DID cut off those damned frames and when I screened that movie, THAT is what I ended up with...and there was no way to ever put it back on!!! I ended up having EVERY SINGLE SHOW screwed up like that because of your precious ID frames. Ever since then I have refused to cut anything off. THAT is my reasoning because I know first hand what cutting frames does from that experience. Granted most changeovers will run perfectly smooth with a frame, or two or three missing off of the head and tail, but I don't know which ones are like that BEFOREHAND, thus they will remain on my print UNBUTCHERED!

There are tons of others like this too. What is the one musical Gordon is always mentioning where there is a changeover IN THE MIDDLE OF A SONG? I saw Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade at another theater that chopped the ID frames off and there was a changeover during an action scene with music. Yeah Steve, it's just great how that music jumped out of sync by half a beat! If I thought about it for a little bit, I'm sure I could come up with plenty of other examples, but I'm getting very tired at wasting my time against you on this topic. You think you are right, but you are wrong. There is always that one changeover out of a hundred prints that is just waiting there for someone to go and cut a couple of frames off. Perhaps this is something you can live with as an occasional glitch in your presentation, but I happen to care a little bit too much for such nonsense and I will not tolerate it.

So don't ever tell me that those frames do not make a difference. Even if only one frame is cut on each end, that equals TWO, and that's enough to make an audible jump any way you slice it, digital or analog.

In John Walsh's 05-20-2000 09:41 AM post, he says, "Brad's idea about cutting off one frame and taping it on the leader is a good one...." Huh? The point of an ID frame is that it is NOT cut off the head or tail nor is it spliced ("taped"?) to the head or tail. Rather, it is integral to and never separated from the leaders, those same leaders that state the reel number.

Later, John says in his 05-22-2000 09:51 AM post "... if it was just me, I'd leave only one ID frame, but it's not. 6 frames almost guarantees there will be at least one ID frame left for someone later...." Huh? The next guy is not going to cut a frame closer to the tail but rather closer to the body of the film. Why would he/she leave the 6th-frame splice on the body of the print during build-up? He/she is going to cut further into the print to avoid that splice for a cleaner transition.

With one ID frame, at worse (in the case of those tape splices that can't be untaped), a second frame INTO the print is cut off to avoid that first splice. At the next theater, at worse, a third frame is sacrificed for the sake of not having to untape the previous splice(s) and to avoid that tape splice being hear or seen.

John: all you are doing is giving the frame-removal process a 5-frame head start. What you think of as leaving 6 frames for others is in fact leaving behind frames that will never be projected now that you've placed a splice just before it. Or am I completely misunderstanding what you mean by leaving frames for others to use?