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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » Sundance (Page 3)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4

Author Topic: Sundance Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 02-02-2006 10:31 PM                     Jon, Well, Park City USED to be a nice place until about the late 80's. Its only a slim resemblance of the amazing town it once was. This is really more of the way the locals feel about fests in general, most here could care less about them. You will find similar feeling in similar towns like Aspen and Telluride, both of which I've spent alot of time in. Also Keep in mind that Park City grows by 17,000 when it occurs and that most attending it come in from elsewhere. I suppose its good for the Airlines . Park City is beyond being a wealthy town already, its not a convention center and can't be, essentially its been ruined big time by those trying to make it so. And its especially a big nuisance to the folks that come in just to go Skiing. Skiing is what built Park City! Thank god there are a half dozen other fine Ski areas within a stones throw of Park City. Similar things occur during the summer art festival thats held there and thats about 2 to 3 times the size of Sundance . And really... Out here there are alot of places that are alot nicer to go visit or live in than Park City!! Overall..... Park City's been trashed . Mark  |  IP: Logged Leo Enticknap Film God Posts: 7474 From: Loma Linda, CA Registered: Jul 2000 posted 02-04-2006 05:45 AM                        The big problem with festivals as a general rule is that they involve a big throughput of extremely valuable (e.g. directors' showprints, one-off archive prints etc.) prints, often in venues which don't normally handle such prints and are only called upon to take on this technically difficult job once a year. The result can often be poor presentation and mangled prints, and of course a high-profile event like a festival is the last place you want to see that happen. From the posts above it looked like Sundance dealt with the issue comprehensively from the top down, by putting a dedicated team in place to look after the prints and oversee what goes on at the venues where overseeing is necessary. I only wish that other festivals which use screening venues that don't handle this sort of material regularly organised themselves as well. Whenever I loan any of our prints out to festivals there's always an element of risk as to whether they'll come back in one piece. On the whole I usually take that risk, because there's no point in having prints made if you don't show them. In that scenario you might just as well have a digibeta transfer made from the preservation master and use that (or subsequent copies of it) for all access. But there are one or two festivals about which I've heard some serious horror stories and would treat with extreme caution.  |  IP: Logged Brian Guckian Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 594 From: Dublin, Ireland Registered: Apr 2003 posted 02-04-2006 08:48 AM                     Leo, you've raised some interesting issues there which deserve attention. I've had experience working for a Distributor where we sent a pristine, newly-struck print of a film to a festival, only for it to come back destroyed with dirt and scratches. We were able to inspect the print in our own theatre, before and after, and I recommended at the time that the festival should be billed - a not unreasonable action to take. However, the company were "dependent" on this festival for good PR and for showcasing their product, so took no action and shrugged their shoulders in resignation. Nothing new about this of course, but some new ideas on how to tackle these issues might be useful. For instance, can some new kind of legal or insurance structure be put in place for these eventualities? Say, a contract that's sent to the festival, or whatever, seting out clearly what will happen if they wreck the print. On the festival side, they could have insurance to cover themselves in case of accidents (let's face it, accidents can happen). There also needs to be a way of making sure the print is inspected before and after dispatch, so there can be no room for erroneous accusations. OK, I guess that causes problems with crossovers or tight schedules. But here's another thing - I think it's time the Distributors and Archives were able to somehow inspect or certify venues. Could a film handling certification process be developed? I guess the costs of operating and policing it could be high, but nevertheless... You know, watching "making of" documentaries on DVD, and seeing film craftspeople at work, really brings it home how unforgiveable it is not to project the final work to as high a standard as possible. Personally it never fails to inspire and humble me when I see the sheer dedication and detail put in to many productions today.  |  IP: Logged Leo Enticknap Film God Posts: 7474 From: Loma Linda, CA Registered: Jul 2000 posted 02-04-2006 11:24 AM                        This is a difficult, no-win issue, and one which gets hotly debated at practically every AMIA conference. Proving that print damage was caused by venue negligence (for want of a better term) is hugely difficult, as is persuading a venue to undertake in advance to meet the cost (either of having a print ultrasonically cleaned or, in the worst case scenario, one or more reels totally replaced) of any accidental damage. When you try, the usual response is 'Sorry, there's no way we can afford that, so just send us a DVD instead.' And of course, when you're dealing with the effect of minor, cumuluative damage as distinct from someone who spectacularly buggers a print in one fell swoop, that's even more of an impossible problem. quote: Brian Guckian But here's another thing - I think it's time the Distributors and Archives were able to somehow inspect or certify venues. Very difficult, because the projection booth is the projectionist's kingdom: and if you get some distributor or archivist marching in saying 'my print's very special, so this is how you should do your job', (s)he is likely to take that the wrong way. Of course, for an event as big as a festival, those sorts of negotiations can take place at a higher level (i.e. the festival organisers hire a theatre on condition that the have the final say on how and by who their prints are handled), but even then it can cause friction on the ground. In reality, of course, the 'certification' happens informally and off the record. For example, my contacts at the BFI know which venues have a track record of looking after their films, and would happily send a rare 1950s IB print, or their hand tinted and toned print of the South restoration out to these places without a second thought. But there are other venues which have a track record of accidents, and they'll just be offered a DVD. This arrangement isn't perfect, but it's probably the best that's achievable. But, as your experience points out, there are some Catch 22 situations: a major, prestigious conference, event or festival with a big reputation offers you a chance to screen your latest release or restoration, but you know that they mangle prints and their presentation is awful. So, do you risk your print for the PR boost or play safe? There's never an easy answer, IMHO.  |  IP: Logged Brian Guckian Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 594 From: Dublin, Ireland Registered: Apr 2003 posted 02-06-2006 09:51 AM                     I get that Leo, you're right, but my intention here is to see if there are any new ideas or new thinking that can be brought to bear on the situation. Of course it's old ground and people have tried very hard in the past to do something constructive about it. That said, it's interesting how what appear to be intractable problems can sometimes be solved through an entirely new approach. It's interesting that festivals calim they "can't afford" to replace prints, etc. But if one had comprehensive insurance, surely purely accidental damage could be paid out of the policy? I can't see how insurance can be that expensive given the relatively low physical cost of a print (granted I'm not talking about archive material, just regular festival titles). Dont' get me wrong - I'm not pretending there are easy answers. But it's good to look on these issues afresh.  |  IP: Logged Bernard Tonks Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 619 From: Cranleigh, Surrey, England Registered: Apr 2001 posted 02-07-2006 04:59 AM                     As an exhibitor in the UK for nearly 25 years (until 2002), I can tell you that, it was impossible to find insurance cover for cinematograph film damage, other than lost in transit or a building fire. Now I dealt only with a specialised Broker in the entertainment industry. The policy clearly stated, NOT WHILST ON THE PROJECTOR! BTW, there was a Philips (Kinoton) DP 70 projector installed in Ireland that originally came from the Columbia Theatre, Shaftsbury Avenue in London. I worked freelance at that lovely cinema for 9 months during the 1970’s gaining that wonderful 70mm experience. The large screen was nicely curved with two sets of curtains. I don’t know where the other DP 70 projector went, or if was just kept for spare parts.  |  IP: Logged Brian Guckian Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 594 From: Dublin, Ireland Registered: Apr 2003 posted 02-07-2006 07:09 AM                     Ah! Well that's interesting, because what about damage done on the bench or other film handling system e.g. platter / tower? If one could even get that covered it would help a lot. BTW - in no way can one condone any film damage whatsoever. It's just trying to find answers to the kind of complaints mentioned e.g. by Leo above. Anyway, this is all a bit negative. It's a matter of creating something new that will address things. Technology can help, but it seems really it's in the organisational aspects of film festivals where improvements might make the difference. A good start is to set out what we think best practice in running a film festival is, and then promote that. So, for starters: 1. A clean and well-maintained projection room / rooms. 2. A separate clean film preparation area with a dedicated expert film handling team (as per Sundance, etc.), either in-house, or in a nearby location. This could apply irrespective of whether changeovers or long-play systems are used, because of the quantity of work involved over and above the usual. 3. The equipment and personnel to handle the volume and types of prints. That means enough reels, proper make-up benches with correct spindles, proper splicers, all the consumables, light boxes, frame counters, etc. In fact...you could possibly hire gear from specialised film editorial supply houses, just like on a feature production where they often will hire film cutting equipment to go with their NLE systems. 4. A clean, secure and safe system of transport of prints between the make-up / break-down location and the projection room / rooms (where applicable). 5. A temporary re-fit of the projection equipment and screen to facilitate additional ratios such as 1:1.38, 1:1.66, etc. - if necessary. 6. New ways to ensure that older prints sent to the festival are in fact in good condition [a tough one to be sure]. One idea is to ship these in early for inspection. If a film handling area was set up in advance, and gear hired from a film editiorial supply house, you could also hire a flatbed Kem or Steenbeck to quickly assess visual quality beyond what is possible via bench inspection. The distributor could then - with their agreement - be billed for this work, where they cannot do these inspections themselves (all too common unfortunately). 7. New management structures for the technical area, using a team-based approach (but this happens a lot anyway). 8. Embedding the critical importance of print care and presentation at the admin levels of the festival. Way too often, all kinds of stuff isn't provided, as some people think they can run these things on a shoestring. Comments / additions to this list? [BTW Bernard, yes, those DP70s are at the Irish Film Institute in Dublin. One in service and the other retained for parts AFAIK]  |  IP: Logged Leo Enticknap Film God Posts: 7474 From: Loma Linda, CA Registered: Jul 2000 posted 02-07-2006 09:21 AM                        If insurance was a viable and cost-effective option, I'm sure that all properly run festivals would be taking out policies as a matter of course. I suspect that the reason why it isn't is because it's an open-ended, unpolicable commitment. For example, does a platter wrap count as 'on the projector' or not? Or what happens if I swear blind that a deep emulsion tramline was caused by a reel falling off a roller during rewinding, but the insurer's examiner is convinced that it happened in projection and that you're fibbing? And what happens if the 'damage' in minor enough to be regarded as routine wear and tear at an average to not-so-good multiplex, but an archive or the owner of a showprint feels it to be unacceptable? Brian's list is basically a statement of best practice, which properly run arthouse theatres and festivals follow. The problem really comes at the next level down, at which too much money tends to get spent on the closing gala booze up and not enough in the projection booth. The only thing that's going to change their minds is if more film-makers, distributors and archives dig their heels in. If - for a hypothetical example - a big distributor announced that it was going to premiere its latest blockbuster at the Festival A and stay away from B, because A had a track record of higher quality technical presentation, then that would motivate the Festival B organisers to sort their problems out. There is one quite well known European festival that three of Europe's best known archives won't deal with in any way, shape or form, because there have been too many presentation 'accidents' that have resulted in serious print damage. I understand that a new technical manager is coming in for this year's event, and that we can expect to see a big improvement.  |  IP: Logged Brian Guckian Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 594 From: Dublin, Ireland Registered: Apr 2003 posted 02-08-2006 06:52 PM                     Great, that's brought up some interesting stuff, particularly where you said that more film-makers, distribs, etc. should dig their heels in. What really works would be to show festival people who are not up for raising the funds to carry out at least acceptable practice just how much art and craft goes into film-making, and how bad it is when that incredible work is scuppered in projection. That should bring it home to them big time. Secondly, it would be good to actually set out best practice and I'll follow this up. (Talk followed by action and all of that). More on this anon...  |  IP: Logged Bernard Tonks Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 619 From: Cranleigh, Surrey, England Registered: Apr 2001 posted 02-10-2006 07:04 AM                     quote: Brian Guckian Ah! Well that's interesting, because what about damage done on the bench or other film handling system e.g. platter / tower? If one could even get that covered it would help a lot. I very much doubt it Brian, the small print conditions would have seen to that. Unfortunately I no longer have the large bible to look anything up. We keep clearing out, however some records have to be kept for six years by law. I have reproduced a section from an annual quote of sums insured and conditions. Note the error of negative film when it should have been of course positive film. Appendix to Section 1b) “All Risks” Coverage on Films Note: This indemnifies the insured Against Loss or Damage from any cause Whatsoever to any negative motion picture The property of the insured, or for which they are responsible whilst anywhere in the United Kingdom. However, under exclusion (1) Loss of or Damage to the property insured which may be sustained whilst in a projection machine or undergoing any process and directly resulting there from is excluded. The total liability of the Insurers in respect of any one film shall not exceed £3,000 nor at any one time the total sum insured.  |  IP: Logged Brian Guckian Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 594 From: Dublin, Ireland Registered: Apr 2003 posted 02-10-2006 07:23 AM                     Many thanks Bernard for going to the time and trouble to reproduce that. Well it does go to show that basically insurance really is all about getting you to pay out on a policy which at the end of the day doesn't cover you at all! The exclusion clause above is so broad and open to interpretation that you might as well not take out the policy in the first place, save for disasters like fire or flood, etc. Still, it's worth looking at this whole area further.  |  IP: Logged Leo Enticknap Film God Posts: 7474 From: Loma Linda, CA Registered: Jul 2000 posted 02-11-2006 04:52 AM                        Right. It doesn't cover any projection-related damage - presumably only films in transit. And £3k wouldn't be enough to replace many prints: an average length 70mm print or a hand tinted-and-toned print of a silent restoration can easily cost five figures.  |  IP: Logged Frank Angel Film God Posts: 5305 From: Brooklyn NY USA Registered: Dec 1999 posted 02-11-2006 07:45 AM                        I was recently called in on behalf of an exhibitor to evaluate a claim by the distributor that a just-struck print had been burned while in the hands of the exhibitor, my client. The distributor agreed to have me come in as a neutral party to inspect their claim. In the presence of the distributor's people I inspected the film and did find damage; It was a high silver b&w print of a silent film. It was obvious that a hot spot had scorched the frame and caused blistering of the emulsion to the point where small holes were burned that were visibly dancing near the bottom of the image. It occurred on reels 1, 3 and 5 which indicated to me that it happened in a change-over run, which was the kind of booth my client has. But beyond that, I explained to the distributor and by client both that all the inspection could verify was that damaged had occurred in a change-over run, but it was not unequivocal evidence that my client caused it. It was a relatively new print that had had only 3 engagements: one prior to my clients, and one after my clients. And since my client was not the only theatre that had run the print, it was not definitive where the damage happened. The theatre after my client's run called in the damage so on the surface it might seem that points to my client as the one caused the damage, but not so. There is still the possibility that the theatre before ours damaged the print but the projectionist at our didn't notice the damage or thought it was just the way the print was and didn't mention it. OR it could be damaged at the theatre that played it after ours but was clever enough to say it came that way. I presented both scenarios and let them battle it out themselves. But this made it very clear to me that it is a difficult thing to assess blame as to who causes print damage unless prints are thoroughly inspected before and after each engagement. The one point my client makes that may tilt in his favor is that he screened the print twice and no one saw any anomalies on the screen. From what I saw, the burn on these three reel would most definately been very noticable unless somehow they were projecting 1.33 silent aperture with the mask still set to 1.37 sound, which might have resulted in the burn being projected on the mask making its less noticable to the lay observer. I haven't been in that theatre in ages so I have no idea if this could be the case, but it is possible. But surely if this damage was occurring on the screen, it would be hoped that SOMEONE, especially the projectionist, would have noticed, complained, DONE SOMETHING ABOUT IT. But my point is, much of this kind of thing winds up as a he-said-he-said predicement, so it is no wonder the insurance companies are hesitant to insure something that can't be very difficult to prove liability. (I can't believe I just sided with the insurance companies..... someone smack me).  |  IP: Logged Brian Guckian Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 594 From: Dublin, Ireland Registered: Apr 2003 posted 02-12-2006 06:58 PM                     Well that says it all Frank. This is what happens when as you say the print isn't thoroughly examined before and after. One new approach could be to "hopscotch" prints and have each come back to the distributor for checking after each engagement. But here's a commercial opportunity - since most distribs no longer seem to have print-checking facilities in-house (over here at any rate), you could "outsource" this function to a facility set up for the purpose. NB - "hopscotching" would involve print A going to Festival 1, print B going to Festival 2, print A going to festival 3, and so on. This would address situations where there are relatively tight timescales between Festivals. Just another idea, would it work?  |  IP: Logged Leo Enticknap Film God Posts: 7474 From: Loma Linda, CA Registered: Jul 2000 posted 02-13-2006 01:44 AM                        If you can afford to have enough prints struck to start with. For arthouse and rerelease titles in Britain, 1-2 prints is the norm, and these most play back-to-back weekly booking or even Friday-Sunday and Monday-Thursday bookings, all linked by overnight crossovers. Shortly before the end of my time as a full-time projectionist I remember Securicor losing a print of an Artificial Eye title on a crossover, and all hell broke loose. I guess that this is what d-cinema is supposed to make a thing of the past (freeing us from the tyranny of 35mm and all that! ); but given that the cost per screening is still way higher than 35mm, shipping costs and all, I still think that the emphasis should be on making the current system work better. Think about it - you can invest £150k on a DLP machine which will be obsolete in 2-3 years' time, or, say, £20k upgrading a 35mm installation to the state of the art and investing in some decent training for the people who run it. Do this for all the 'usual suspects' in the rep cinemas/arts centres/universities circuit, and all this mieowing and hissing about mangled prints would be a thing of the past.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

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.