Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Ali is a bi*ch

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Film Handlers' Forum » *Ali is a bich (Page 2)**

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

Author

Topic: Ali is a bi*ch

Neil Hunter
Film Handler

Posts: 74
From: Salisbury, NC, USA
Registered: Oct 2001

posted 01-06-2002 12:44 AM

Darryl,

What a small world it is! Don used to be an assistant manager at my theater two years ago, and then he went to Kentucky, and I moved up north. Then he came back and shortly after that I came back. We run soundtrack up. I will try running soundtrack down. The static problems are pretty much on all platters, but it gets worse with the longer prints.

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

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

posted 01-06-2002 12:49 AM

Your platters are not timed properly then. Throw the Christie manual in the trash and use the technique outlined in the tips section here and much of your problems will go away. If you can operate a multimeter, you can do the timing yourself.

Oh and DON'T let your tech put in the "new" led retrofit speed control kit that Christie is passing off as "superior". There are still some serious issues with it.

| IP: Logged

Brent Mahaney
Film Handler

Posts: 43
From: Bowling Green, Kentucky, USA
Registered: Dec 2001

posted 01-06-2002 01:13 AM

I am having similar problems with one print of LOTR and one print of Ali. I have had absolutely no trouble with static since this theatre has been open. I'm sure Film Guard would be a good solution (pun intended). Wish me luck on trying to get somebody to make the investment! I'll give it a go right after I make a few more fruitless attempts to get my useless economy splicers replaced...

| IP: Logged

Josh Kirkhart
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 165
From: Austin/Houston, TX, USA
Registered: Nov 2001

posted 01-06-2002 02:38 AM

As to the AW3's and static causing the feed arm to accelerate the platter and wrapping or throughing. If filmguard is not a solution available to you and cannot get the platter speeds correct try this.
Place a D-Cell battery on the brain in the path of the feed arm, this will stop the arm from flinging as far and speeding up. The battery should be placed past the top speed line on the platter and secured so as not to fly around itself and be the cause of its very own brainwrap.
My real advice is to time your platters even if its just with your watch according to specs and order some filmguard out of petty cash and impress your boss with less film stops and better presentation. Filmguard is not always the solution (in fact, one of the assistants ata previous theatre used filmguard as a platter cleaner, oh boy did those prints fly, that was a crazy time and not fun to fix), but in this case it should solve these problems even used in the minimal way.

| IP: Logged

Aaron Sisemore
Flaming Ribs beat Reeses Peanut Butter Cups any day!

Posts: 3061
From: Rockwall TX USA
Registered: Sep 1999

posted 01-06-2002 03:07 AM

I second Brad's suggestion to time the platters his way. Try to take a bit of the spring tension off the feed arm as well, to avoid any 'dragging' troubles after the timiing is changed. It makes an AW3 run sooooo nicely.

-Aaron

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

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

posted 01-06-2002 03:33 AM

Oh geez. So I guess the bottles now need to say "not for use as a platter cleaner". Kind of like the hairdryer that has the disclaimer "do not use while sleeping".

Foolish sounding disclaimers like that always happen because someone has actually DONE it.

| IP: Logged

Josh Kirkhart
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 165
From: Austin/Houston, TX, USA
Registered: Nov 2001

posted 01-06-2002 05:27 AM

The whole thing was just bad! I was on vacation and somebody thought itwas a good idea to let a new hire manager into the booth. The way he told it, he was supposed to clean up the booth, vacuuming etc. He was overjoyed 'to use his words' to be off the floor he wanted to keep busy so he decided to clean the platters. He read 'film cleaner' on the bottle and assumed MULTI-PURPOSE. Next round cometh and film was a flying. I was called in an hourlater and was screamed at by the General manager and anyone else that wasn't busy doing something including customers. He had not fessed up about the filmguard and I walked in, slid my finger across a platter and about had a heart attack at about the same time he pronounced that he'cleaned the platters'. Heavy cleaning and everything was back to normal. He was positioned in box office and never lived it down. My most horrible experience in the booth.

Instead of disclaimersmon the bottle, people themselves should come labeled 'not booth trained' on thier forehead.

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

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

posted 01-06-2002 07:58 AM

AFAIK, all prints of "Lord of the Rings" were on Fujicolor print film.
I believe that "Ali" and "Harry Potter" were on Kodak VISION Color Print film, at least in North America.

Winter is usually the worst time of year for "static cling" problems, because of the change in humidity caused by indoor heating. Even though Kodak VISION Color Print film has a conductive backside layer to help discharge static, "static cling" can still be an issue in some theatres, especially if the platter surface and rollers are non-conductive. As mentioned, platter timing and leveling also play an important role. Long movies (like LOTR and HP) also tend to be more sensitive to static cling, as the outer laps of film on the platter are pulled away at such a small angle, that even very slight static attraction between film surfaces can pull extra laps of film.

For additional protection against static cling, Kodak recommends an antistatic process additive that is used by most of the labs. We have had cases where the additive had not been used at the correct concentration, giving inadequate static protection. Post-process treatments that provide additional conductivity or change the charge balance (like FilmGuard) can also help.

If you provide the title and print number, the lab name (if known), and the full magenta edge-print numbers from the affected reels, we can track the film batch and lab records to see if there is anything out of the ordinary about these prints. Send the detailed information to me off-line. But I suspect there are other factors, related to the conditions and equipment in the theatre.

Here are some recent articles to help theatres reduce static problems:
http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/newsletters/reel/september99/pointers.shtml
http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/newsletters/reel/september98/pppp.shtml
http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/support/faq/static.shtml

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
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

Tom Fermanian
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 101
From: Sainte Adele, Quebec, Canada
Registered: Dec 2001

posted 01-06-2002 02:27 PM

Hey! just for clarity's sake, let's make it clear, besides physical weight of film stock,and some proccessing savings for the lab and minor impact on the environment, why in heaven's name did we,as theatre operators allow the swith to this troublesome film stock. We had to spend money bu putting safety'features on our equipement, film choppers etc.Godd money that could have been spent on better improvement (lenses etc.) Things where going well with the old tri-acetate stock, they tell us that the film will last longer, ha, with all the multiple prints today ,most pictures are thru within a month anyhow.Local labs confirmed that film stock prices are about the same between both types. The decision is up to the distributor.With digital cinema supposedly coming in the next few years, industry should not horse around with the dreaded (for cinemas anyway) mylar stock. I can't, in my region find any projectionist or theatre owner that has anything positive to say about this.

Anything realy good to be said (for theatre operators) about mylar?

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

| IP: Logged

Gordon McLeod
Film God

Posts: 9532
From: Toronto Ontario Canada
Registered: Jun 99

posted 01-06-2002 02:54 PM

The Labs and others didn't want it but NATO and its members did the thought that no more film breaks was to big of carrot
estar film actually weighs more and I no of no enviromental advantage to estar either.
The exihibition industry wanted it and now they are stuck with it

| IP: Logged

John Walsh
Film God

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

posted 01-06-2002 04:44 PM

"The exihibition industry wanted it and now they are stuck with it."

Really? I thought it was the other way.. ie; the distributors wanted because they had to pay for replacement prints.

I think we are better off with polyester than without it. Admittedly, though, there are still problems. Besides, it's really cool to see some of the spectacular platter wraps, watching the platter pulled to the projector, etc. Never had this much fun with boring acetate.

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

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

posted 01-06-2002 06:44 PM

Kodak cautioned the movie industry about polyester's issues of static charge, projector abrasion (dusting) and extreme strength. I presented a technical paper at ShoWest detailing the concerns found in a trade test with the picture "Mr. Wonderful". Other film manufacturers encouraged the conversion, and Kodak had to follow suit and spend years and hundreds of millions of dollars developing Kodak VISION Color Print film, which has a conductive antistatic backing and is much more resistant to projector abrasion. NATO's Technical Advisory Committee requested the conversion to polyester in 1991, well before Kodak could recommend its use. Distributors favor the reduced perforation wear, and the ability to fit longer features on "mini-platters" with the slightly thinner film.

| IP: Logged

Tom Fermanian
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 101
From: Sainte Adele, Quebec, Canada
Registered: Dec 2001

posted 01-06-2002 07:09 PM

In regards to John's Reply:
Realy!!!fit longer features on mini platters? How many mini-platters out there???, Reduced Perforation wear?? Prints don't seem to play that long anymore, average run on so-so pictures nowadays is 3 or 4 weeks?? When an industry makes a mistake, (Ford had the superior EDSEL car) it was marketed failed to its USER'S expectations,It was retired! Does anyone remember the Simplex aero platter??? Let's do the same with polyester!
BTW, in Canada we get some European product (France-Belgium etc.)some prints still arriving in good ol'e tri-acetate!

MAJOR MAJOR DISADVANTAGE for polyester is static, Projectionists have enough to do to assure a great presentation (Focus,Sound,Framing,Cleanliness) than having to be a Humidity expert/permenant platter watchers, Let's get to work and find the right answer to get rid of Static permenantly, not only Hit or Miss solutions.

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

| IP: Logged

Gordon McLeod
Film God

Posts: 9532
From: Toronto Ontario Canada
Registered: Jun 99

posted 01-06-2002 08:59 PM

I have yet to see in canada a triacetate print from europe recently
Agfa hasn't made acetate stock available for prints for some time
the only acetate I have seen was some BW stock

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

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

posted 01-06-2002 09:04 PM

I hated the first few years polyester film came out, but I must admit I do really like the latest Kodak Vision 2383 stock of the last couple of years. (I actually prefer the look of 2383 to 2393.) Overall though, I would gladly welcome back a reissue of the 386 acetate stock. The colors were MUCH better as was just about everything else about it. Plus virtually no shedding and no static.

Bear in mind this is coming from someone who markets a product that most people use to eliminate static and shedding and not necessarily because of the improvement in presentation it offers. Bring back acetate!

| 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.