Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: ELR Why not?

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Film Handlers' Forum » ELR Why not? (Page 2)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

Author

Topic: ELR Why not?

Tom Sauter
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 163
From: Buffalo, NY, USA
Registered: Sep 2000

posted 09-19-2000 09:58 AM

I wouldn't mind if labs spliced for us between 2000' reels after printing is done and just ship on ELRs. Changes to processing would be minimal and 2000' houses could be easily accomodated. If they or the distributors can't make a decent splice they shouldn't be handling film in the first place.

I'd like to see the TES version of the plastic ELR reel!

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

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

posted 09-19-2000 10:11 AM

Actually, TES designed a very durable ELR and shipping case, that they presented to the Inter-Society Committee. Goldberg's design was likewise very robust.

The ELRs and cases being used by Warner Bros. and New Line are from a different vendor, however.

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment 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

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99

posted 09-19-2000 02:55 PM

I don't like the "dirt traps" on the inside flanges of Warner and New Line's ELR reels. It makes it incredibly difficult to wipe clean the inside flanges and the dirt trapped in that little waffle design clings to the print as it is unrolled.

I think the fact that no one can seem to properly splice on an "attached trailer" after the reel 1s have been printed is proof enough the labs and depots should NOT be allowed to "build up" the prints to ELRs.

| IP: Logged

John Walsh
Film God

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

posted 09-20-2000 11:27 AM

If the cues are included on 6000 foot reels, the editor still "controls" where the break will be. Hopefuly, the editor has given some thought as to where a good break(s) should be, and if the c/o marks are kept, a good projectionist (although stuck running 2000ft reels) will follow that example. There will always be people who will just cut the film any place (some do that now!) but it would be better to let the editor decide where, rather than an uncaring dope who would just cut it in the middle of a scene because his 2000ft reel is full.

Is there anything wrong with just winding 3 reels onto one ELR? I mean, what if that became the "standard" delivery method? The labs would just wind three seperate 2000ft reels onto one ELR. The end of each reel would be taped down so it doesn't fly off when the end of the previous reel is reached. When making up, the operator cuts off the tail/head as usual, then keeps going. He stores the heads/tails the same way as now. When it's time to ship back the print, he just winds it onto the two ELR's. The next platter operator who gets the print has some work already done for him. If it's reels, that next operator has to put it back together (either for a 20 or 40 min reel) but he has the heads and tails to do so. The reel-running operator probably already has house reels, so he does not need the 20min reels that usually come in the cans.

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99

posted 09-20-2000 11:43 AM

That would not really solve much. If that was the case, I'd prefer to keep things on 2000 foot reels. I can just see reel #2 coming in tails out anyway!

As to my argument on removing reel changes, how is the 2000 foot capacity theater supposed to find the cue marks? Really, is he supposed to somehow force the reel to fit in a space that can not accommodate a 6000 foot reel so he can screen it once to look for cues? The whole point of ELRs to me is to have only ONE splice (two for Costner flicks) within the feature. That's where the majority of damage comes from in an otherwise nice booth, from poor handling during buildup.

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

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

posted 09-20-2000 12:18 PM

I agree with Brad. Although you could put three complete reels (including head and tail leaders) on an ELR "as is", you would not gain the advantages of eliminating the time and extra handling needed to remove the leaders, make splices, and then reattach the leaders after the run. Industry conversion to ELRs will require considerable investment by the labs, the exchanges, and the theatres, and is only justified by the reduced handling and improved quality allowed by not having to continually splice and unsplice leaders.

I also agree that changeover cues should continue to be printed for those few theatres that continue to need them. Where to change reels should be the decision of the film editor, and not at the whim of the theatre. But to fully utilize the advantages of ELRs, ALL theatres need to be equipped to handle ELRs. "Dual inventories" of ELR and 2000-foot reels are impractical for the long term, and would lose the cost/quality advantage.

| IP: Logged

Scott Norwood
Film God

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

posted 09-20-2000 01:43 PM

What I find confusing about this discussion is that the whole argument in favor of ELRs is that they reduce handling and the potential for mis-handling. Doesn't anyone else think that this is the wrong way to go about solving the problem of mis-handled prints? Wouldn't it be easier to charge theatres for print damage and thus force them to hire and train people so that they will not damage prints (or at least force them to pay for a new print for the next theatre)? It seems like this would be the better way to solve the problem, unless I'm missing something here.

Don't misunderstand--I'm not really against the ELR concept (though I have worked in a booth that would need new reel arms, a new rewind bench, and a bunch of 6000' reels in order to deal with ELRs); I'm just suggesting that there may be better ways to solve the problem at hand.

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

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

posted 09-20-2000 02:04 PM

I totally agree that holding theatres responsible for careless damage would help improve print quality. A better mechanism is needed to "catch" chronic offenders, to make them change their ways.

The justification for ELRs is that they eliminate the lost frames and dirt/scratch buildup resulting from having to make and unmake the leader splices through the life of the print. And ELRs will save some time (i.e., money) by simplifying the "make-up" process. Multiply those savings by thousands of prints per week, and ELRs have a good "business case".

| IP: Logged

John Walsh
Film God

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

posted 09-20-2000 04:52 PM

Yeah, I realize my "3-reels-on-an-ELR" idea isn't a great one, but I'm just looking for ways to get the concept going, if only partially.

Brad is probably right; not only would the labs put a reel on tails out, but also put reel 3 on the outside!

This whole ELR thing gives me an upset stomach. It's one thing when you have a problem with no solution; but here, we have the solution, but no studio wants to implement it. And theaters are the losers.

| IP: Logged

Paul Konen
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 981
From: Frisco, TX. (North of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99

posted 09-21-2000 08:21 AM

The other problems that I had experienced with ELR is the Christie MUT. Once the reel starts getting full the "rubber band" belt can't very well start turning the reel AND get the platter running also.

Speco MUTs never really had this problem as they use real belts.

| IP: Logged

Josh Jones
Redhat

Posts: 1207
From: Plano, TX
Registered: Apr 2000

posted 09-21-2000 05:25 PM

Shame on you brad! Cueblips on 6k's aren't useless. what about the people running 6k xovers? Huh, Huh, betcha didn't think of that!

Josh

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99

posted 09-22-2000 04:08 AM

Josh, I never said eliminate the cues on the end of what would've been reel 3. Shame on you.

| IP: Logged

Scott Norwood
Film God

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

posted 09-22-2000 09:31 AM

What's wrong with the Christie MUT? I've never actually handled a film shipped on ELRs, but I've never had any problems with make up/breakdown onto 6000' reels (the good floating-hub Goldberg ones) from AW-3 platters.

| IP: Logged

Dave Bird
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 777
From: Perth, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Jun 2000

posted 09-22-2000 11:09 AM

But what about my "beer-every-cue" idea? Aren't more cues better

? Sorry.

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

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

posted 09-22-2000 11:31 AM

Re: Beer cues.

One every 20 minutes is about my pace.
(Not if I'm in the booth or driving, of course).

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

Printer-friendly view of this topic

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.