|
|
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Projection: Platter v. Changeover - Opinion Poll
|
Scott Norwood
Film God
Posts: 8146
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 01-07-2003 12:31 PM
There are too many factors here to single out the means of film transport as having improved or harmed presentation quality over the last 25 years or so.
My personal impression (though I am too young to remember) is that the height of film presentation quality would have been in the larger downtown theatres in the mid- to late-1960s. By that time, optics and electronics had evolved significantly since the early days of film, 70mm and 4-track 35mm mag prints would have been, if not common, at least not rare (along with dye-transfer Technicolor prints) and the large single-screen houses (complete with curtains) would have still been in their prime.
Based on the theatres I've seen and what I have been told by others, presentation quality took a dive in the mid-1970s until the mid- to late-1980s, when shoebox mall-type theatres became common, and when shows were often run by inexperienced operators. I would tend to say that presentation quality in typical first-run multiplexes has improved since the early '90s, particularly with the introduction of digital sound and the higher-quality optics which are in use in the newer theatres (along with other factors, such as improved film stocks and more flexible automation systems), although most such theatres are still missing many of the elements of showmanship which existed in the late '60s.
Platter vs. changeover has nothing to do with any of this, except for the (untrue) perception in the early years of platter operation that less skill was needed to operate the equipment. My own feeling is that the opposite is true: it takes about ten minutes to learn how to do proper changeovers and other ten (maybe fifteen) to learn how to trim an arc lamp. Platters and automation require additional troubleshooting skills and are more complex topics to learn about.
Personally, I started with xenon and changeovers with large reels, but now regularly run all types of systems (except for towers). As long as the equipment has been maintained well, it's possible to put on a good show with any type of transport system.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Robert E. Allen
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1078
From: Checotah, Oklahoma
Registered: Jul 2002
|
posted 01-08-2003 02:42 AM
Well Joe, I don't know what got into you but I find your generalized remarks about us who are a "...little older..." offensive. It was men like my father who pioneered this field (starting in 1916) who helped make the advances you enjoy today with their suggestions and technical expertise and who saw the industry go from silent films to sound, from B&W to color, from flat to 'scope and 3-D and from mono sound to stereo. I personally had to serve an apprenticeship for 18 months before I was turned lose in a booth by myself and took great pride in my contribution to the movie experience from the dimming of the lights to the opening of the main and title curtains at just the right time to the checking and maintaining a good sound level, light and focus throughout the performance to making those changeovers without any interruption in the continuity and maintaining the equipment as I lovingly handled the film that had been placed in my care. I believe the producers charged me with the responsibility of putting on a perfect performance and I believe I accomplished that the vast majority of the time and that made me feel very much a part of the production.
I have been in many multiplexes operating with platters and unattended booths since leaving the theatre and have yet to find ONE that has put on a performance that even begins to compare with what can be done in a well operated changeover booth. I understand why they are called "film handlers" today. Because that's all they do. They get the film on the platter and into the machine then push the start button and abandon the booth projecting pictures that are out of focus, out of frame, poorly lit with fuzzy edges because the projectors are not properly lined up and with sound so loud it just about blows you head off. And talk about film damage, you should see some of the trailers and splices I've seen (I realize this makes me guilty of the same generalization I accuse you of, but that is all I have experienced). And no, not all of that happen in the same plex. Those are just examples of what I've seen. There are few projectionists left. We are subject to minimum wage employees who receive almost no training and apparently have little interest in good projection.
I'll stack a well run "attended" booth up against any platter operation you want anytime.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Stephen Furley
Film God
Posts: 3059
From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England
Registered: May 2002
|
posted 01-08-2003 10:12 AM
Brad wrote:
quote:
Bring it on Bob! I know plenty of platter automated booths that can take down the best changeover presentations hands down. It is the people who make a difference. I like Joe am also getting pretty sick and tired of people with the attitude that platters cannot put on the same quality show that changeovers can. Anyone who thinks this really needs to wake up from their coma.
Brad, I agree with you when you say it is the people who make the difference, not just the people running that presentation, of course, but also those who have handled the print in the past, including the staff at the lab who made it.
I disagree, however, when you say "I know plenty of platter automated booths that can take down the best changeover presentations hands down." This implies that any changeover presentation, however good, *must* be worse than the platter operations to which you refer. Any method of presentation can damage film, and a good platter presentation will certainly be better than a bad changeover one. I seldon see a film presentation from a platter, but most of the prints I see have previously been run on platters and or large spools. I seldom see a new print, and I don't think I have ever run one myself. Every print I have seen, which has had leaders removed and re-spliced for running on long-play systems has had some degree of damage where this has been done. In some cases this is very slight, and may well pass un-noticed without careful examination of the print, in others it is so bad as to make the print almost unwatchable. Even a very badly damaged print is normally ok, except for the first, and last few metres of each reel. This suggests that it is not the running of the print on large spools or platters whish is causing the damage, but the handling involved in the repeated making up and breaking down involved each time the print moves to a new theatre. Even if we assume that every print I have seen which has been run in this way has been mis-handled, and that it is posible to make up and break down a print numerous times without causing *any* damage at all the print still cannot be restored to its original condition; there will be splices at each end which were not originally there. Let us assume that the print has been pade up on a platter, and that no damage has been caused to it, you say that this presentation can be better than any changeover operation. Clearly a changeover operation could be very much worse than this, but there is no reason why it has to be. I saw 'The Sound of Music' well into its original run in London, by which it must have been run, and re-wound very many times, and showed no sign of damage.
The only disadvantage I can see which is *inherent* in a changeover system is that a few frames will be missed at each changeover, however, a print which has been made up and brokken down several times is often missing frames anyway. The changeover cues are still on the print however it is run, so this is not a problem unique to changeover operation. Why do you feel that a platter operation can be better than the best changeover operation? In what way. If you had said that the best platter operation is better than a typical changeover one, or that the best platter operation is equal to the best changeover one, then I might be able to agree with you.
My biggest objection to platters is that they were introduced to save money, by having one projectionist operate several screens. Of the three cinemas where I normally see film, one has only one 35mm machine, and runs rilm from a tower. The second has two machines, and normally runs 6000 foot spools, the third has two machines, and normally runs 2000 foot spools, but can also run 6000 feet. In all three venus there is normally a projectionist in the box while the show is running, and the presentation quality is good. If a film is slightly out of frame after a changeover or splice then it is put right within a couple of seconds, if a speck of dust gets into the gate it is blown out. If there is one projectionist running a dozen screens, it is probably going to be there for guite a while.
You say that "I like Joe am also getting pretty sick and tired of people with the attitude that platters cannot put on the same quality show that changeovers can.", yet you seem to be doing the same thing yourself, in reverse, saying that changeovers cannot put on the same quality of show that changeovers can. I think you are right to critisise bad changeover operation, but wrong to say that platter is better; they can both be bad, lets work to make them better.
I have a number of reasons myself to prefer changeover operation, not connected with presentation quality, e.g. being able to have a film on the screen within a few minutes of the print arriving, and being able to have the last reel in the can and ready to go within seconds if the last part is run onto a split spool, but that is another matter.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brad Miller
Administrator
Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99
|
posted 01-08-2003 01:56 PM
Steven,
A few clarifications.
First I am speaking of a platter theater vs. a changeover theater both starting with a brand new print (same movie, lab and film stock - neither one of them a special print, like an EK).
Second I am NOT speaking of a run-of-the-mill platter house. No way can you just waltz into your local 30 plex AMC and expect a show like I am speaking of (not that this cannot be done though, as it CAN be done - it's just not common).
Third, YES the better ran platter booth can outdo a better ran changeover booth easily. Yes I was indeed implying that.
Fourth, no I am not saying that a magnificent presentation cannot be had by changeovers. It is just that many people here seem to think that is the ONLY way of providing a flawless presentation and I am just sticking up for the platter people who DO put on a flawless show because a well designed and properly installed platter, if operated properly, is much easier on the film than any changeover system.
Steve,
I agree with you on the splices, but an ultrasonic does make flawless transitions on screen without a jump or horizontal "splice line". In contrast, I've yet to see two lamphouses that were perfectly matched up on changeover. Is it bad? Not at all. Is it distracting? Not really. But it is there.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
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.
|
Home
![[thumbsup]](graemlins/thumbsup.gif)
" is more dependent on having a skilled and caring projectionist than the type of equipment used to transport the film. To the extent that automation has allowed a "dumbing down" of booth operations to be run by part-time, unskilled and/or uncaring labor, things are worse. But even in today's "cut costs to the bone" economy, many theatres still shine in their ability to make money AND do film right, regardless of the equipment they happen to use. Their success is usually due to their respect and support of skilled and caring booth personnel. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
And sometimes I think that I should kiking is ass off ! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[bs]](graemlins/bs.gif)
and told us not to remove the spare projector in case of problems.....17 years later when the cinema closed down, there where 80 multiplex cinemas in the region with platters. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic