The type A reels often come without an inner shaft notch and I've encountered many of these that have been hand chiseled to fit the shaft. I've also noticed that Type A reels seem to have more of a tendency to snap apart during transport and often become separated in the film cans.

I actually saw some merit in your reels except for the early ones which had the periphery of the flanges pinching inward leaving substantially less than a 35mm clearance. As a reel to reel operator (I own & operate a private screening room in Chicago) I try as much as possible to take up directly on the shipping reels which not only saves time but also leaves the film tails out (the way **I** prefer to receive them, ready for inspection) and with the preferred emulsion-in wind. Thus your original batch wasn't safe for such use. But the later ones are fine by me. I like the Delrin-like plastic. It seems to stay cleaner.

You need to do two simple things to improve the product. Go to a theater with Christie platters and mount your reel on their makeup table (not the rewind bench, but the actual rollaround MUT that hooks up to the platter to load and unload film). Then you will see why the general booth population hates those reels. They do not fit. There must be at least one hole in the reel that lines up with the drive hole in the film core, otherwise they are useless. Remember, the vast majority of all theaters run off of platters and almost all of them require that drive pin hole. There's generally lots of cursing to be heard in most booths when it comes time to break down a New Line print that has those reels because of this. This is the main reason why everyone on this thread has pretty much said the same thing "definitely not D".

Also, the edges on the ones I've seen are awful sharp. After seeing some reels that have been "previously enjoyed", the edges are knicked and sharp enough to cut film and flesh. They need to be rounded please.

Fix those two items and I think people won't have any problem other than we need to know the *proper* way to put them together and take them apart. If you will send me documentation, I will post it on the site so your reels do not get broken by projectionists who do not know how to properly take them apart and put them back together.

If you do a re-design, send me a prototype and are there is any problems with the design, trust me, I WILL find them and let you know before you go into mass production.

 |  IP: Logged

Think we should send a printout of this forum to TES?

As for the need to separate the flanges...What happens is that the reel is taken apart, then the core is popped out and the film itself is tossed...presumably the polyester base is recycled?

The concept is basically sound, but the implementation (especially with TES reels) often leaves much to be desired.

The clasps were easy enough to see which had the most holding surface area and, again, given the strength of the material used, which would sustain impact abuse.

Not ever having worked a Christie MUT, I didn't mention Brad's major point -- obviously these things need to work on all existing equipment out there without needing to drill freakin holes in them. Then I added what might seem simplistic, but the idea that if the clasp does break, there should be some down and dirty way to join everything together easily by even the least unhandy of our compadres -- hence the holes that one could either thread string or cable ties through as a quick fix to at least get the film back into the can.

Here's what I sent them:

======================================================
18 May 2002

RE: REEL SURVEY

Dear Brad Carroll:

Received the four break-apart reels for evaluation.

As much as I pondered over these reels, I came back to the same problem. The difficulty is in knowing the tinsel strength of the materials. I just received a print of MGM’s SWEET SMELL OF SUCCESS and one of the flanges of one reel was shattered, a condition that we see too often. As best I can determine, this was a case of the plastic not being able to withstand whatever forces were applied to the can. Plastic seems to be more brittle than some of these other compounds. So the way to prevent this kind of shattering would be to know which material has the best tinsel strength. A chemical engineer would give that information easily and more accurately than my guessing. But I will anyway:

My instincts say the Poly Propylene (A) seems to resist breakage the best because it’s obviously more pliable, less brittle that the other samples. I don’t think I have ever seen these flanges arrive broken. On the other hand, they tend to warp more easily, although warpage in a reel with such pliability is not a major issue as you don’t run the film on these reels, they are merely a means of transporting film.

The second choice would be the High Impact Styrene (B) as it seems to have some of the pliability of the Poly, but a bit more sturdiness. The big question (again for the chemical engineer) is, which of the two is most shatter- proof -- which breaks faster in those compression and impact tests. The choice between these two flange types would be made once you get an answer to that question.

The ABS plastic (C) and the TransFilm blend (D) seem to be as stiff as the common reels that are in use now and that so often arrive broken. But again, if all these flanges were given the same stress testing, THAT would be the way I would choose the one to use. I could be totally wrong about the Poly and Styrene – the ABS or Trans might just stand up better to abuse.

The fasteners are the real issue, it is this that we have the most frustration with. If the fastener breaks, then all is lost.

I would rate the Clip Fastener (D) the best of all four fastening systems. This is because the design allows a sturdier arm that clasps the other flange rather than the hub. But I must say, the others all run a close second – again, everything depends on the physical endurance of the flange. A strong, impact resistant flange will provide a fastener that is more difficult to break. All four seem to hold securely, although the Long Arm (A) and Short Arm (B) both rely on not only the arm to grab the hubs, but on an additional protrusion to hold the arms in place. This provides one more piece that can fail if the reel is damaged. The Prong (C) comes in last because putting the grabbing mechanism at the very center of the reel is where all the forces of a reel being dropped are directed. In the other designs, especially (D), the flanges have a center support that extends into the hub that is separate from the locking mechanism. If this reel is dropped, the forces are directed at the center post holding the hub. Even if that breaks, the fastening mechanism will still function.

Lastly, I would add that whatever the design, it should include a way that if the fastener fails, the film handler would have a way that the flanges could still be easily joined to the hub. The (D) design allows this. Even if one or both of the arms fail, a wire tie or even a length of string could be passed through the flange, through the hub, through the other flange and back again, thus securing the unit well enough to wind or unwind film. It only requires that holes in the hub align with holes in both flanges so that all can be easily tied together by the film handler.

Well, I hope this is helpful. It certainly would go a long way to relieving some of the frustration that is aimed at Technicolor if changing over to a better design stops or reduces those nightmare experiences where a film has to get mounted and the projectionist opens the can only to find one or more broken reels and film spilled all over the can.

Keep me informed on the company’s final decision.

Warm regards,

Frank Angel

C would be my second choice. I'd rather receive the prints held together with bands of duct tape than use A or B ever again.

ANSI/SMPTE 192 lists the pertanent dimensions so the reel can actually hold film and line up with other apparatus. In the annex A.2 discusses the need to have holes to allow the use with platter make up tables. It does not specify just where the hole should be and the size of the hole.

Personally, I feel that the drive dog hole for MUT should be standardized such that you don't have to move the dog pin around depending on the reel.

Steve

 |  IP: Logged