Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Whatever Happened To 6,000 Foot Reels ?

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Film Handlers' Forum » Whatever Happened To 6,000 Foot Reels ? (Page 2)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4

Author

Topic: Whatever Happened To 6,000 Foot Reels ?

Bernard Tonks
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 619
From: Cranleigh, Surrey, England
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 05-08-2001 05:27 AM

Thank you for your replies.

Leo has given a very good description of the Cinemeccanica 6,000' spools, and they would be the same that I also purchased from Sound Associates.

As we all know, compared to a 2,000' spool, 6000' is only a mere 4 1/2 inches extra, so perhaps spool and transit problems could still be sorted out. I would be pleased to receive my copy of Pearl Harbor on 3 spools!
I have run many two projector 3D prints which were transported on 5,000' spools, and they were never a problem.

However I do see the arguments against, and maybe 4,000' would be the answer.

------------------

| IP: Logged

Jesse Skeen
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1517
From: Sacramento, CA
Registered: Aug 2000

posted 05-08-2001 10:51 AM

When these were out, I was very disappointed that although they were PRINTED as one continuous reel, they still had the changeover cues where they would have been had they been done the traditional way. I've always found those distracting as I ALWAYS notice them, and often use them to determine how far into the movie it is- if I'm watching a movie and getting bored I'll start counting reels so I'll know when it's going to be over!

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

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

posted 05-08-2001 11:27 AM

Jesse:

AFAIK, very few were actually PRINTED as a continous 6000-foot reel. As I noted previously, most were printed as conventional 2000-foot reels with cue marks, and spliced into an ELR after processing.

I recall that Deluxe (Rank) Labs in the UK did have the capability of printing and processing an entire feature as a single roll! This 4000-metre printing system won an Academy Scientific and Engineering Award in 1982.

------------------
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 Cell: 716-781-4036 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

| IP: Logged

Scott Norwood
Film God

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

posted 05-08-2001 12:20 PM

There are two major problems with 4000' lengths for shipping purposes. The first is that many theatres can't handle anything larger than 2000' reels anyway and would need new reels arms and rewind benches. The second issue (which is probably more significant) is with theatres that currently can run most complete features off of two 6000' reels. Switching to 4000' shipping lengths would mean either an extra changeover for every feature or the prints would get hacked up anyway to run in 6000' lengths. Neither approach is really desirable.

| IP: Logged

Christopher Seo
Jedi Master Film Handler

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

posted 05-09-2001 02:29 AM

John:

Does Kodak even have the capability to manufacture a continuous 12,000 foot roll of raw stock? Or would it be guaranteed to have at least one lab splice?

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

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

posted 05-09-2001 04:59 AM

I liked them personally (that is the ones that were one continuous piece of film that had no splices). I never had a reel bust open on me, but then again I only handled half a dozen features on them so the reels were not that old. I didn't like the reel design itself, but they worked fine on a Kelmar rewind table and fine for breaking down directly off of an AW3 with Christie's ELR shaft. It DID save time and it DID save wear on the film. Unfortunately not every theater will have that equipment (or the Christie MUT adaptor shaft), so taking that into effect, I am glad to see they are gone.

In the end, my biggest beef was the fact that the damned cue marks were STILL THERE!

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

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

posted 05-09-2001 07:56 AM

Christopher Seo asked: "Does Kodak even have the capability to manufacture a continuous 12,000 foot roll of raw stock? Or would it be guaranteed to have at least one lab splice?"

It would take some changes in manufacturing, but it could be done. But there are major logistical issues in packaging, shipping and handling such a large and heavy roll. It certainly could not be lifted safely without mechanical assist. The Inter-Society Committee quickly found the idea of shipping a full feature on a single ELR would be impractical.

| IP: Logged

Demetris Thoupis
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1240
From: Aradippou, Larnaca, Cyprus
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 05-09-2001 01:56 PM

Hmm,
The "well known" black spools from Cinemeccanica. SOLID!! NOT. Don't shield the spool on the projector (closing the spool holding thingy - shaft) and let it drop on the floor. Then we will see what is stronger. Your projector's gears!! or this spool.

Actually at the cinemas down in Cyprus, these spools are well spread all over. Beyond the jokes if you handle them with care and not just throw them away then they are very reliable. Even if overfilling them with film. BUT. Don't drop them on the floor from high ground and don't let them roll down a set of stairs cause then you will kiss your spools BYE BYE!! One other problem is that the holes in the middle of the spool become deformed after a lot of use (rewinding). Of course, Cinemeccanica made their holes removable!! You can change the size to fit any projector shaft. So. Overall I would give these spools an 8 out of 10. CINEMECCANICA NEVER DIES!!
Ciao for now
Demetris Thoupis

"FOR STRENGTH AND HONOUR"

| IP: Logged

Bernard Tonks
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 619
From: Cranleigh, Surrey, England
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 05-09-2001 04:47 PM

Last paragraph of Leo's post 05-07-2001.

>If 6,000 foot spools ever do become the norm for distributing release prints, I would much prefer to see them supplied on 4-inch cores packed in tightly-fitting containers (like the ones used for 2,000 foot reels in Europe at the moment, only bigger).<
.............................................
With the spool problems including wide in structure, Leo's preference might well work. Most cinemas constantly move prints off & onto platters, handling 6,000' on a core should be easy enough. A size of a 2,000' container measures 15". A 6,000' container would only have to measure 23", almost the size of a 5,000' spool.

As for the spool issue again, perhaps the Cinemeccanica make should be taken a serious look at.

Could John Pytlak please tell me if all release prints are always the same thickness - just curious, thanks.

Message for Brad. I would like to submit my photograph but I am extremely camera shy. I was wondering if I could change my head to a spool,...a large one of course!

------------------

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

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

posted 05-09-2001 04:59 PM

Hey, I put my pic up. YOUR TURN!

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 05-09-2001 05:03 PM

And take it from me when I tell you that Brad does NOT like the camera pointing at him! Even if I am casually holding my camera at my side and the lens is pointing in his direction, Brad will get out his gun and threaten my life until I move the lens away! Just kidding, but that would make a great picture!

| IP: Logged

Bernard Tonks
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 619
From: Cranleigh, Surrey, England
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 05-09-2001 05:28 PM

Hi Joe,

You disappoint me, in one of my posts I mentioned 3D. I was expecting to see another picture of you with 3D specs on (in 3D)!

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 05-09-2001 05:29 PM

Well I do have a picture of me with normal 2D specs on, but I don't think I'll submit that quite yet.

I CAN make 3D pictures. The problem is that not everyone's monitor has the color calibrated the same way. So the 3D effect would be lost on most people even if they had the glasses.

Good idea, though!

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

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

posted 05-09-2001 09:51 PM

Bernard asked: "Could John Pytlak please tell me if all release prints are always the same thickness - just curious, thanks."

35mm print film film is all nominally 34.975 mm wide, per standard SMPTE 139. Kodak VISION Color Print film is coated on nominal 4.7 mil (0.0047 inches, 120 micrometres) thick ESTAR polyester support. The emulsion layers are about 0.6 mils (0.0006 inches, 15 micrometres) thick. Kodak VISION Premier (2393) emulsion layers are very slightly thicker than Kodak VISION (2383) emulsion layers.

Kodak 35mm triacetate support was nominally 5.6 mils thick.

| IP: Logged

John Walsh
Film God

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

posted 05-09-2001 10:58 PM

Brad wrote: "In the end, my biggest beef was the fact that the damned cue marks were STILL THERE!"

Wouldn't it be better for the c/o marks to be left on, in case someone _had_ to run 20min reels? That way, leader could be added to each reel and run c/o style without messy homemade c/o marks. Better to have them and not need them, than to need them and not have them......

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4

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.