Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: those silly cardboard reel bands

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Film Handlers' Forum » those silly cardboard reel bands (Page 3)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

Author

Topic: those silly cardboard reel bands

Kenneth Wuepper
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1026
From: Saginaw, MI, USA
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 04-09-2003 06:55 AM

"DO NOT REWIND AFTER USE"

In the early days, when films were projected by reels and changeovers, it was possible to straighten the bent metal shipping reels enough to place them in the bottom magazine of the projector. For the last run of the film the shipping reels were used as takeups. The paper bands were placed around the outside of the film pack and wound in the opposite direction of the film so that the pack would be kept from unwinding. A spool of string was kept handy for replacing tattered strings when needed.

The exchange, upon receiving the film, would inspect it and it would then be in the "heads out" position on the reel for shipping to the next user. The reason for "not rewinding" is it saved the exchange from having to rewind the film. This was an extra and costly in time step for the exchange. In these times, it was possible to load and project the first showing of a film directly from the metal (if not bent too badly) shipping reels.

When the large reels and then the platters came into popular use, the films were returned "heads out" and made the inspection process more time consuming, costly and, because the inspection machines which inspected for sprocket hole damage had to see the film from the tails out direction, every reel had to be rewound before inspection. Either technique, machine or manual, needs to sense the damage to the head edge of the sprocket holes.

Please note that the feed sprocket, intermittent, first and second sound sprockets all engage the edge of the sprocket holes on the same, heads, edge. The hold back or last sprocket uses the tails edge of the sprocket holes. Damage is more likely to appear on the many feed sprockets than on the takeup holdback sprocket.

The deterioration of the inspection process was, in part, caused by the booth operators who did not rewind the films to the "tails out" format. Now the films will be further degraded by operators who do not band the films so we can expect to see lots of damaged leaders and cinched prints.

KEN

[ 04-09-2003, 08:09 PM: Message edited by: Kenneth Wuepper ]

| IP: Logged

Steve Kraus
Film God

Posts: 4094
From: Chicago, IL, USA
Registered: May 2000

posted 04-09-2003 08:56 AM

because the inspection machines which inspected for sprocket hole damage had to see the film from the tails out direction, every reel had to be rewound before inspection.

Why would a machine looking at a mechanical characteristic like sprocket hole damage care about orientation which is purely a photographic detail? Are you saying such a machine could not be used to check a roll of blank leader?

| IP: Logged

John Hawkinson
Film God

Posts: 2273
From: Cambridge, MA, USA
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 04-09-2003 09:33 AM

It's hard to fathom that there were inspection machines to check for sprocket damage, and that they no longer exist now. Wow.

I always assumed the "do not rewind" was a combination of:
a) Acetate prints should be stored emulsion-in (tail out, or head-out with a half-twist) for optimum focus stability.
b) Not so that prints could inspected at the exchange (oh, happy day if it were so!), but so that they could be inspected at the next theatre and then be head-out ready to project.

--jhawk

| IP: Logged

Michael Schaffer
"Where is the
Boardwalk Hotel?"

Posts: 4143
From: Boston, MA
Registered: Apr 2002

posted 04-09-2003 10:12 AM

Probably the inspection machines did not care for the film direction, but I figure they fed the reel in foot first so that it would come out head first, ready for storage.

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

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

posted 04-09-2003 02:27 PM

quote:
When the large reels and then the platters came into popular use, the films were returned "heads out" and made the inspection process more time consuming, costly and, because the inspection machines which inspected for sprocket hole damage had to see the film from the tails out direction, every reel had to be rewound before inspection.

The deterioration of the inspection process was, in part, caused by the booth operators who did not rewind the films to the "tails out" format.

I am fairly certain none of this is accurate. I made many trips to the Dallas NFS depot back in the days and there was no such machine. I would think a major depot like Dallas would have had one if they were used. I think Ken is mistaking the NFS 35mm depots with the 16mm depots like Swank and Films Inc, for they used RTI inspection machines. Regardless, the inspection machines I worked with briefly did not care whether the film was heads or tails out.

At NFS, there was a specific "film handling and inspection" room where they had a couple of dozen rewind tables and a conveyor belt, as employees wound the film curled through a cupped hand (with a dirty white glove) at full throttle. I inquired about this and if the film broke, then they knew they had to cut out a part and repair the sprocket damage. If it didn't break, then the sprockets were fine. There would only be a quick spot check at the beginning or end of the reel for objectionable scratching. Their splicers were atrocious and they were using some unknown brand of splicing tape for the longest time that together made some of the worst splices I have ever seen. Later they changed to Hudson Photographic tape (which at the time was decent), but that couldn't save their horrid splicers.

NFS had a firm policy of winding emulsion in if the films arrived heads out and would ship tails out. The reverse was true if the films arrived tails out, that the film would be wound emulsion out for shipment heads out. They didn't think projectionists could figure it out otherwise. Actual emulsion orientation for the best interest of the film (regardless of your opinion on the matter) held no water there.

I do not know the reasoning behind ETS dropping the reel bands.

The inspection process was killed by the TES depot. They were the ones who introduced the clip together reel and the elimination of film inspection as a means to save time when preparing new prints for shipment or junking old films. This way it was no longer necessary to kill the minute or so it took to wind the reel at full speed. All they had to do was clip the reels together or take them apart and the film was instantly on a core. When ETS opened up, they followed the timesaver. Of course we all know that once a few films were shipped after skipping that step and theaters still got their shows on screen (no matter how much more time and hassle it took on the part of the theaters), that the clip together reel was instantly deemed a success and killed regular inspections right then and there. The elimination of inspection had nothing to do with people rewinding or not rewinding their films. Nowadays I have been told by both depots that they want the films back all heads out.

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 04-09-2003 02:33 PM

quote:
Probably the inspection machines did not care for the film direction, but I figure they fed the reel in foot first so that it would come out head first, ready for storage.

Right. We used to get circuited films via the bus quite often, and our westbound bus arrived at 5:35 PM. Often that bus would be up to an hour late, so many's the time I would get the film and have to run it right off of the shipping reels. Every now and then the film would race in the door about 5 minutes before show time (or, occasionally, 5 minutes AFTER show time), and we used to royally cuss if a late delivery arrived with tails-out reels!

| IP: Logged

Bruce McGee
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1776
From: Asheville, NC USA... Nowhere in Particular.
Registered: Aug 1999

posted 04-09-2003 06:12 PM

I've mentioned this before. Please forgive me.

I used to go to Benton Brothers Exchange in Atlanta and watch inspector Ola McElhinny at work. She worked there for 40+ years, and was one of the sweetest people that I have ever known.

I seem to remember that she had an electric rewind that ran at medium speed. She used cotton gloves and was known for catching damage better than anybody there. A little pressure with the fingers... just enough to make the film curl slightly... is all she did.

She was featured at work in one of the Kodak booklets. I want to say it was Reelnotes #50. I may be wrong.

She was the best in her field.

Benton Bros. used reel bands with heavy string. I still have some of them on my older prints.

| IP: Logged

Scott Norwood
Film God

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

posted 04-09-2003 07:55 PM

Brad--if the depots don't inspect prints anyway, then why would they care if they come in heads-out or tails-out? Just curious.

Personally, I like to receive prints tails-out for inspection purposes, although I always return them heads-out (regardless of whether I am shipping them out from a platter house or a changeover house).

| IP: Logged

Steve Kraus
Film God

Posts: 4094
From: Chicago, IL, USA
Registered: May 2000

posted 04-09-2003 08:29 PM

I've always presumed that Do Not Rewind was simply to save unnecessary winding / rewinding. If the theatre rewinds and the exchange inspection puts it back to tails then that's an unnecessary rewinding at both theatres.

It could also be that perhaps in the old days if you got a print heads out you knew it had been inspected and was ready to go and if you got it tails out you knew it had not been but you could conveniently check it yourself with a single wind.

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

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

posted 04-09-2003 09:23 PM

When I did my comprehensive study of the causes of film damage in the early 1980's for the SMPTE, all the exchanges I visited had manual inspection done by people, rather than automated machines. Some distributors even paid for full inspection after each booking.

| IP: Logged

Frank Angel
Film God

Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 04-10-2003 03:15 AM

I am assuming that the DO NOT REWIND is a holdover from earlier practice when the exhanges actually did inspect and shipped prints Heads Up and "ready for projection." Which of course was actually NOT ready for projection because no one in their right mind would trust bent sheet metal reels to feed or takeup in magazines. So you always had to double rewind anyway; most of us did it/do it without whining about it. But nowadays, I see no consistancy in how I get prints. They can be shipped Tails Out as many times as they are shipped Heads Up.

And I don't quite understand the "problem" with using reel bands if the print comes with them, even if one cannot see that they do serve a valid function. For decades reel bands came on every single print, no matter who the distributor, and projectionists didn't seem to have any particuar trouble figuring out how to replace them on the reel for ship-out. I never heard of a projectionist throwing them in the trash. Has the "dumbing down of America" reached that far into the projection booths? You would think even the concessions kid could understand how to replace a reel band. Yes, string breaks -- I have seen plenty of repairs that projectionists made to string as well as to tears in the bands themselves so that they could send the band back with the print. We are not talking about rocket science here.

And as has already been said, even if one personally cannot see the purpose of using reel bands....even if one thinks they are "useless," it would seem totally inappropriate to just toss them out if they are supplied with the print.

Frank

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

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

posted 04-10-2003 04:46 AM

Scott, the answer I was told was that it makes it quick and easy to grab another print if needed for comparison purposes of whatever reason if all films were wound the same direction. I know that sounds like a lame reason (it isn't a very strong one), but that's what I was told by a couple of different people upon asking (ETS and TES). I think it's more of a situation where most theaters already return heads up via platter breakdown and it is easier to standardize to the majority.

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

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

posted 04-10-2003 02:12 PM

quote:
I used to go to Benton Brothers Exchange in Atlanta and watch inspector Ola McElhinny at work. She worked there for 40+ years, and was one of the sweetest people that I have ever known.

I seem to remember that she had an electric rewind that ran at medium speed. She used cotton gloves and was known for catching damage better than anybody there. A little pressure with the fingers... just enough to make the film curl slightly... is all she did.

She was featured at work in one of the Kodak booklets. I want to say it was Reelnotes #50. I may be wrong.

The issue is H-50-5 of Kodak's "Film Notes for Reel People", and it's in the Manuals section of Film Tech:

http://www.film-tech.com/manuals/H5005.pdf

I met many dedicated people like Ola when I visited NFS exchanges for my SMPTE Film Damage Study in the early 1980's. [Smile]

| IP: Logged

Steve Kraus
Film God

Posts: 4094
From: Chicago, IL, USA
Registered: May 2000

posted 04-10-2003 08:17 PM

Has the "dumbing down of America" reached that far into the projection booths?

Frank, Frank, Frank...do you really have to ask?

| 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.