Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: I really need to start splicing head and tail leaders back on the prints

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Film Handlers' Forum » I really need to start splicing head and tail leaders back on the prints (Page 3)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4

Author

Topic: I really need to start splicing head and tail leaders back on the prints

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

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

posted 11-09-2002 04:33 AM

I have a couple of brand new manufactured-this-last-July Strong MUTs, and they really don't seem any different to me, other than the retractable cord is now bright yellow. Whether they are shorter is beyond me, as I have never tried to use the older ones to go straight to the middle platter without using the other rollers, nor would I. But they seem the same.

So why can't Strong MUTs get their power from the platter? The thing I hate most is having to plug the thing into the platter tree AND plug it into the wall. It's a bad and inefficient design. It's so unnecessary.

| IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

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

posted 11-09-2002 09:24 AM

It is also just your opinion. A strong MUT can also do "quick and dirty" service as a rewind table in a pinch. It can also power the platter in case of catastrophic failue (like the transformer melting down in a AW-3 due to shorted work lamp socket or lamp). I prefer the idea that the work table is unto itself...just my opinion.

Steve

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

| IP: Logged

Randy Stankey
Film God

Posts: 6539
From: Erie, Pennsylvania
Registered: Jun 99

posted 11-09-2002 09:39 AM

Except for having two cords on the MUT, giving the platter power from the table is a good idea, IMHO.

It reduces the number of wires that have to carry current between the tree and the table. It simplifies the design of both table and tree. Furthermore, it ensures that you'll never blow a fuse in the tree if you try to break a movie down at the same time as a movie is running.

SPECO platters have that problem. If you are playing a movie while breaking down and you turn the speed control knob too fast, you will blow the main power fuse in the tree. Of course, the movie goes down. In order to prevent this you have to turn the know really slowly or you have to put a larger fuse in.

OK, Turn the knob slowly... It's REALLY easy to turn the knob too fast. We tried it this way for a while. Even the occasional one or two of these you tend to get is too much.

Put in a larger fuse... Sounds easy but there's a problem with that too. You take a chance on burning up the insides of the platter. If you ever press two programming buttons of the same color on a SPECO platter you take a chance on burning up the switches. Changing switches on these babies can be a PITA if you don't have the never vintage with the plug-in switches. (Or the retrofit.)
Why would you need replaceable switches if they didn't get blown all the time?

The simplest, most elegant solution for avoiding all those problems is to have the MUT on its OWN SEPERATE power supply. The only thing that really bugs me is that the power cord doesn't retract like the "umbilical" does. At least they could put a cleat on the side of the table to wind the cord on.

| IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

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

posted 11-09-2002 12:24 PM

The separate plug thing doesn't bother me at all...most outlets are duplexes so there is a plug ready willing and able.

I agree on having both retractable...I also would prefer a much better strain releaf. The Potts/Strong tables have a ball that slowly gets pushed to the connector and eventually will force the wires broken...kinda defeating it's purpose.

Steve

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

| IP: Logged

Scott Balko
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 136
From: Redwood Falls, Minnesota, USA
Registered: Apr 2000

posted 11-09-2002 01:16 PM

Well, I would just like to say that being a film collector before becoming a theatre owner really helped in the "respect for film" department. In building a print, I always use clear tape (the good stuff too) and use gloves so as not to get any skin oil on the film. Then every run of every print gets the film guard treatment and the heads and tails are spliced back on at breakdown time. I believe the print should leave my theatre in as good or better condition than it arrived. We are all in this together and if I keep the print in an enjoyable condition for other exibitors, we all benefit. I too have recieved used prints that had Scotch tape splices and other crap done to the print and never wanted to pass that kind of frustration on. I figure that if I don't like dealing with this shit, no one else does either.

Just my two cents worth.

| IP: Logged

Steve Kraus
Film God

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

posted 11-09-2002 09:41 PM

A clever lad like Joe ought to be able to install a metal ceiling and floor around his platters and rig the MUT's with trolley poles like the old bumper cars!

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

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

posted 11-10-2002 01:29 AM

Hmmm... hadn't thought of that. I guess I'll be stopping by the hardware store on the way to work tomorrow.

| IP: Logged

Mark J. Marshall
Film God

Posts: 3188
From: New Castle, DE, USA
Registered: Aug 2002

posted 11-10-2002 10:20 PM

Brad Said:

quote:
...but I do know that AMC actually TEACHES the practice of breaking down without reattaching the leaders. (You see, using half a foot of splicing tape is WAAAAAAY too costly for a print on ship out in AMC's opinion.) ... and I wish someone at AMC would get in there and change that company policy/training practice.

Workin on it. One theater at a time.

| IP: Logged

Daniel Boisson
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 157
From: Buffalo, NY, USA
Registered: Oct 2001

posted 11-11-2002 02:08 AM

At my old theatre, we use architecture's tape(I think that's what its called). It's similar to masking tape, but the sticky side isn't as sticky, so it wont tear paper, or in this case, leave a residue.

| IP: Logged

John Hawkinson
Film God

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

posted 11-11-2002 08:14 AM

That's "drafting tape," Daniel.
Personally, I suspect it will degrade over long enough, too, but I don't know from experience.

Using good tape is certainly the right and conscientious thing to do, but the fact of the matter is that everyone should be prepared to clean off nasty tape residue, and have the tools to do so. Because you're never going to stop absolutely everyone from using nasty tape...

--jhawk

| IP: Logged

Frank Angel
Film God

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

posted 11-11-2002 08:24 AM

Someone else also mentioned that in a post some time ago, but I can't find it. I think they said it was blue? Anyway, Daniel, do you have a supplier for the architect's tape? I am game to try anything that holds well but leaves no residue. Perhaps a few of us could test it out. As Brad mentioned, even artist's tape will leave residue after a few years, although unlike masking tape, the adhesive on artist's tape is rubber based and will always remain flexible and not flake off. Masking tape adhesive on the other hand will become hard as nails and it does flake. Eventually the particles will migrate into the body of the print where it acts just like sandpaper. That's a worry you don't have with artist's tape and why, so far, it has been the hold-down tape of choice. But this architect's tape may be even better. A few of us should get a couple of rolls and give it a try. Who knows, it might become THE definitive hold-down tape for film.

I have also tried using a thinner artist's tape -- 3/8th inch. It holds down film ends down just as well as the wider widths, plus, if it does leave a residue after a long period, there isn't as much of it to clean off.

Specs for a PERFECT splicing tape:

It stays supple forever; never hardens.

It will not ooze adhesive.

The adhesive comes off on the tape ONLY, never on the film when it is
removed.

The width is two full frames.

It is thicker than present tape -- thick enough so that it will not tear when it is pulled off.

The adhesive grip does not increase with age. It should be able to be removed as easily after 5 years as it was the day it was applied.

Anyone else have any other specs they would like to see in the perfect splicing tape?

3M Scientists....are you listening? Come to think of it, shouldn't the Kodak people have come up with this years ago -- the better splicing tape? And the better hold-down tape, for that matter. You would think this would be a natural product for them. They were all into those splice tabs for the 8mm consumer market years ago. Do they have a splicing tape line for 35mm commercial operation?

| IP: Logged

Scott Norwood
Film God

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

posted 11-11-2002 08:27 AM

I like the idea of 8-perf tape, but does anyone make an 8-perf splicer?

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

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

posted 11-11-2002 08:35 AM

quote:
Specs for a PERFECT splicing tape:
It stays supple forever; never hardens.
It will not ooze adhesive.
The adhesive comes off on the tape ONLY, never on the film when it is
removed.
The width is two full frames.
It is thicker than present tape -- thick enough so that it will not tear when it is pulled off.
The adhesive grip does not increase with age. It should be able to be removed as easily after 5 years as it was the day it was applied.
Anyone else have any other specs they would like to see in the perfect splicing tape?

Frank, with the 8 perf width exception, Neumade clear tape already offers this. I have prints that are 10 years old that I can effortlessly peel the splicing tape off of without the slightest hint of residue. They also do not lose their strength or pliability over age. If only Neumade would make 8 perf wide tape and modify their splicer just a tad to accept it, they would really have THE splicer. (Not that they don't already, it would just be that much better.) Get a spare trailer and a roll of Neumade clear tape and make a bunch of splices in it, alternating from whatever you use now and the Neumade. Every few months go in and try to remove one splice of each. All other brands get worse and worse with time, but not Neumade's!

Assuming there is ample leader on the prints, the only major time I have an issue with cheap masking tape or old Artist's tape is when people use it on trailers. All that has to be done is for a short loop of film to be wrapped around the trailer (like a reel band) before labeling, and any crappy old tape can be used without damage to the trailer. It also protects that first foot of it from getting scratched and dirty from handling and storage. There are pictures of this in the "tips" section under "cutting trailers properly". (Scroll to the bottom of the page.)

| IP: Logged

Frank Angel
Film God

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

posted 11-12-2002 12:07 AM

Brad,

I know you have praised Neumade tape for awhile now; it definately will be my next batch. And no question their splicers are hands down the best. When I know I am going to a booth where they have the one with the tape roll in the front, I carry my Neumade with me.

Frank

| IP: Logged

Yuichi Uehara
Film Handler

Posts: 2
From: Honolulu, HI, USA
Registered: Sep 2002

posted 11-12-2002 03:12 AM

How is "painter's" tape? That's what we use down here. Also, I've found that applying Xecote w/ a Q-Tip to take off the sticky tape residue works pretty well, also works to remove silver pen marks. I believe rubbing alchohol does the same thing, but never tried it myself.

| 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.