One or both edges of the print have been damaged (stretched) and the film will NEVER wind properly again.

A print damaged in this fashion will look perfectly normal in many cases if you look at the edges, however you might notice a teeny tiny crease on the edges or some slight elongation of the perfs, or some other very subtle damage.

Causes? There are many, misthreaded projectors and platters can do it (it only takes ONE pass thru the film path to do the damage), as can too-tight or way off-center pad rollers on sprockets. I have had both of these cause exactly the same problem with several prints before finally discovering the cause...

-Aaron

 |  IP: Logged

 |  IP: Logged

 |  IP: Logged

No Gordon, it was new. Just two previous passes.

The stock is Agfa AGS 96 7984 01.

Just a reminder, the print is not damaged. It has a medium running scratch down the outer edge of the sprockets from the previous location's two passes. I guess this could have done it. The print would have been pretty green knowing the lab's workload of late.

I did the 3 feet stretch on one side and found this...

Of course, happens with any print if you pull it only on one edge. A pull in the middle of the frame showed only a buckle free print. If being picky, there was a (VERY) slight concave towards the base side. The print was made at Atlab. Unsure of the city though...

The pics at the top of this post...(Here's one)
were taking up track up and you can see the result. Here's a pic of it taking up track down.

Note the buckles at the bottom but not at the top. The print is still just as loose and pays out the same.

Curiouser and curiouser.

------------------
"It's not the years honey, it's the mileage". - Indiana Jones.

Interesting. Agfa Gevaert print film is rarely used for feature film prints in the United States, although quite a few on-screen advertisements are printed on their film.

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 585-477-5325 Cell: 716-781-4036 Fax: 585-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

 |  IP: Logged

That second sentence may be a key. I'm not yet convinced that your assessment is correct. I've seen something similar. Hold the film near the sprockets with a facial tissue held very lightly between two fingers and pull with the other hand. Repeat with the other edge of the film. I suspect you may find more resistance on one side of the film than the other and bits of paper being pulled off.

If you still see or feel no damage, look at an angle and feel the area between the sprockets, looking for a single tiny bump between but not touching each sprocket hole. The embossing can be _very_ light. Sometimes the little bumps may be out of line with the sprocket holes entirely.

Hi Jerry... the print has no sprocket damage. Believe me, I've looked VERY closely to try and work out the reason for this anomily.

John Pytlak said...
>>Interesting. Agfa Gevaert print film is rarely used for feature film prints in the United States, although quite a few on-screen advertisements are printed on their film.<<

Hi John...Yes, we have been receiving a few of these prints through now...generally they are through the one distributor. The image is VERY nice, but the stock picks up a LOT of dirt through its run. A print on this stock must be FilmGuarded from day A to day Z of its run or as soon as you stop, it's like a magnet to dirt. This goes the same if its not Fg'd at all.

I also find this stock to wear out far more quickly than Kodak stock. I have Dolby Digital snipes that are simply un-runnable now as they look shocking...especially at the heads and tails, whereas another snipe of equivalent age is still looking fantastic.

Ads and trailers printed on this stock look foul after only one or two weeks. They also show incredible resistance to being made up from a ring and spun onto a spinner on make up day. The stock flips, clings, grabs onto itself then you get to Kodak and an ad of equal length that just took you 2 minutes to spin now takes 10 seconds as it just does what it's supposed to.

John, I'm assuming it must be a LOT cheaper. Would I be right? Although the images are great and I would commend the distribs for that, the fact that the prints must all be covered in crap only days after release would surely lose any of those benefits, so it must be cheaper.

I'm moving toward thinking it's this scratch that's stressed it too much. One good way to see I guess would be to check the splices. I'll do that tonight.

------------------
"It's not the years honey, it's the mileage". - Indiana Jones.

Let's just say "You get what you pay for."

Here is the technical data for the KODAK VISION Print Films. You can see all the advantages that were designed into the film:
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products/lab/2383.shtml
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products/lab/2393.shtml

Kodak spent over $200 Million USD designing and building the machine to make the unique ESTAR film base that has a scratch-resistant, conductive coating to make "Prints Done Right".
http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/corp/pressReleases/pr19960509-01.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: 585-477-5325 Cell: 585-781-4036 Fax: 585-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

To move this print, we have had to remove the last three reels from the plate to a spool and then move the sloppy print in a sleeve. Even this is VERY dangerous.

There are five movements this week...I will attempt to change that when I get to work today and just have it left in one theatre if I can.

The lab say they won't replace it if we are able to run it...which, of course...we can, but is that really the issue? If a new car starts and runs yet as soon as I try to move it, the wheels wobble and look like they are going to fall off...isn't someone responsible? Would I really just have to accept that it runs and thus be happy?

I think not.

This is bull.

Perhaps now is time to publicly name the lab and the contact person so that all the lurkers working in the industry can know where not to get film processed, and who to avoid hiring when it goes belly up?