Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: VOTE Safety vs. Polyestar

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Film Handlers' Forum » VOTE Safety vs. Polyestar (Page 3)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

Author

Topic: VOTE Safety vs. Polyestar

Dwayne Caldwell
Master Film Handler

Posts: 323
From: Rockwall, TX, USA
Registered: Apr 2000

posted 12-09-2000 03:16 AM

You prefer Nitrate Ken? I hope you're well stocked on fire extinguishers

Is it just me, or does the film image on Polyestar base have more jitter than Tri-acetate?

Personally I like Tri-acetate because, as Ian mentioned, it makes a clean break and you only have to cut a frame to two as opposed to grinding up two to three feet worth of film and you have to realign the rollers on the projector. And I swear the image is steadier on Tri-acetate. But maybe that's just me.

------------------
The man with the magic hands.

| IP: Logged

Stefan Scholz
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 223
From: Schoenberg, Germany
Registered: Sep 1999

posted 12-09-2000 05:59 AM

Come on, Polyestar was there for some 15 years or so. When we screened XXX Porn in late nights back in 1985/86 it was on "unbreakable Agfa Polyester". As there is no new XXX made on film anymore, the few XXX theatres still run the same prints they used to do in 1985. There are scratches, but no film breaks. And those theatres were never known to employ highly motivated (and well paid) personal. At that time we had to encounter all the problems you are discribing. But we had to find workarounds, and with a little will it worked.

Today I am running 12000 ft reel-to-reel, and never encountered a film transport problem. All the stuff we get today is Estar based.
Of course with the crappy Kinotone platter technology, and the old microswitch center payout control there was always trouble. That's why we converted back to reels. But that's easy, as we're running single screens.

| IP: Logged

Chris Erwin
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 195
From: Olive Hill,KY
Registered: Oct 1999

posted 12-09-2000 10:56 AM

And everything comes full circle. When safety film came about, projectionist had gripes about it. (being less fire prone was not one of them

)

The concern was that it (safety film)wouldn't bond well with certain formulations of film cement (ok..we're going back a ways) So, projectionist would have to spice a frame of nitrate in with the safety splice to make it hold better. In time, things changed, splicing methods and supplies changed.

I'm not doing anything but making an observation here. It's funny how the new stuff is accepted by the old school .

For the record, I agree with the majority on the problems of the polyester stock in the hands less than experienced. The new stuff takes a bit more watching which some people just won't do. (but those people aren't here at film-tech!)

--Chris

| IP: Logged

Rory Burke
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 181
From: Burbank, CA, USA
Registered: Jun 2000

posted 12-09-2000 11:16 AM

Tension sensing failsafes???? So we are stuck buying more equipment to solve a problem someone else introduced????
Actually i hate tension sensing failsafes. If you want to effectvely combat the problems that polyester indroduces use tension sensing film cutters.....Tension sensing failsafes tell you only when there is a problem. Cutters will prevent from damaging you projector and protect the film itself. It the bestway to go... Soome of the problems ive seen include the film wrapping itself among the gears in a tight fashion onlyu a knife helps out. Film cutters precent damaged film and unwanted repairs to your equipment. Failsafes cant do that.

Polyester film is sooooo strong....it WILL pull a car out of the snow.....Rental car in Toronto last year got stuck and we pulled it out using a 4x4 truck attached to the rear axel of the rental with a trailer loop about40 ft long. It WORKED GREAT!!!!

Rory

| IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 12-09-2000 12:48 PM

Theatres burnt down from the use of nitrate film.

What was the big damage or, more importantly, the public safety issue with triacetate?

The comparision of Nitrate to acetate doesn't hold.

With respect to the image quality, just about anyone that has seen nitrate projected finds that it looks somewhat better than acetate or polyester....mind you, there are many factors going on here beyond the base itself...including silver content.

FWIW....I believe that nitrate was used in the binder layer of acetate films...John P. would have more information on that.

Steve

------------------
"Old projectionists never die, they just changeover!"

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

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

posted 12-09-2000 02:57 PM

I've got to disagree with the tension sensing "cutters". If I've already got some mangled film, I don't need yet another splice in the film. I know the argument is that once the film is mangled, what difference does it make...well in the event of a disaster, I'd like to keep the damage to a minimum. Steve's preference of an accumulator that could handle the slow stop of an XL is THE way to go. Besides, I can just see something or another tripping the cutter blade and chopping a perfectly good film due to some outside interference or stickiness! At that point, I've now got a splice with a jump cut (don't tell me the cutters cut on the frame-line) and several feet of scratched film from where it runs through the projector and drags across the floor.

| IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 12-09-2000 04:24 PM

And you wonder why I qualified my statement with a "depending on ones vision of ideal"

;-)

Steve

------------------
"Old projectionists never die, they just changeover!"

| IP: Logged

Chris Erwin
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 195
From: Olive Hill,KY
Registered: Oct 1999

posted 12-10-2000 11:03 AM

>Theatres burnt down from the use of nitrate >film.
>What was the big damage or, more >importantly, the public safety issue with >triacetate?

>The comparision of Nitrate to acetate >doesn't hold.

Steve, that's a good point. I know of a death that occured (within driving distance) over a nitrate fire. I wasn't really trying to compare nitrate to acetate.

I just thought it was an observation on how new stuff gets introduced (for whatever reason) and how the field must adapt to it.

--Chris

| 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.