Topic Closed

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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » Hey you, you suck! (AKA: Outing bad film handlers) (Page 10)

This topic comprises 100 pages: 1  2  3  ...  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  ...  98  99  100

Author Topic: Hey you, you suck! (AKA: Outing bad film handlers) Philippe Laude Film Handler Posts: 79 From: Longueville, Belgium Registered: Jul 99 posted 02-14-2003 04:30 AM                     Trichloroethylene (C2HCl3)makes wonders at removing crumbly residue,goo, etc. Use in a well ventilated place, use gloves! Philippe Laude  |  IP: Logged Frank Angel Film God Posts: 5305 From: Brooklyn NY USA Registered: Dec 1999 posted 02-14-2003 04:34 AM                        To add to John P.'s reasons why masking tape is bad for film, one more characteristic which we see in the art house end of the business, is that prints that got put away in storage with masking tape used as hold down tape, the adhesive, as John points out, dries out. What we find is that after a year or two that crumbling adhesive become a hard abrasive. And the stuff migrates into the body of the print. There it acts much like sandpaper, easily scratching emulsion as the film is wound, played and wound again with this abrasive caught between film layers. The damage it can cause is significant. Also to add to the litany of masking tape woes is that goo John was talking about can take hours of soaking in solvent (we use a special cleaner made just for label and tape adhesive residue) to remove it. Many time this gunk is left on actual film frames and you must remove it or loose live film. Bottom line is simple: you wouldn't use some alternative cleaner not made for the paint surface on your brand new car to clean it....like, say, SCOURING POWDER ; using masking tape, a material that was never designed or intended to be used on film, is just as bad. Don't do it. Frank  |  IP: Logged John Hawkinson Film God Posts: 2273 From: Cambridge, MA, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 02-16-2003 08:20 PM                     Pet peeve: The word is "lose" not "loose." To "loose" something is to "release" or "untie" it. Hours? If you use a reasonable solvent, it should come off in seconds. We use 1,1,1-trichlorethane (renovex), but all sorts of other solvents work fine, too (see above, trichlorethylene. Also naptha, ligher fluid, Renovex II, and even film-guard, though I hear it's not the best for this application). "gummed label remover" is good for substances that are sensntive to solvents, but film isn't one of them. You can use much stronger stuff. --jhawk  |  IP: Logged John Pytlak Film God Posts: 9987 From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922 Registered: Jan 2000 posted 02-16-2003 08:59 PM                        Triacetate film base was adversely affected by many solvents. Certainly acetone and methylene chloride would DISSOLVE the base, and others might cause shrinkage or curl. Kodak ESTAR base is less affected by most solvents, but it's still a good idea to stick with those recommended for film cleaning.  |  IP: Logged Tom Doyle Expert Film Handler Posts: 176 From: Bristol, CT, USA Registered: Nov 2002 posted 02-18-2003 10:33 PM                     After reading the discussion about the proper way to break down prints - not chopping off frames and peeling off splicing tape, I have to ask: does anyone actually do this? I work at a sub-run theater. I have built up dozens of prints over the past semester (and rejected many others while at the depot). I can't recall a single one not having splicing tape left on it, sometimes two layers. The heads and tails, if there, will usually be held on with masking tape, occasionally with another layer of splicing tape (usually double-sided). Sometimes, there will be masking tape in between two layers of splicing tape. (Needless to say, these prints are usually scratched throughout.) Does anyone in Connecticut work at a first-run theater that actually takes good care of the prints? If so, I'd like to hear about it.  |  IP: Logged Steve Kraus Film God Posts: 4094 From: Chicago, IL, USA Registered: May 2000 posted 02-18-2003 10:43 PM                    I wish I could "out" whoever had a particular print of the Irish film "Puckoon" before it arrived in Chicago. 5 rolls on cores...well, 3 on cores, 2 had the cores knocked out. Several leaders on incorrect rolls including a roll with a tail leader at each end. No usable check frames...there were some frames in there that didn't match but they were not contiguous to the leader so could not serve as proof of anything. And very odd splices that overlapped the film by almost a full perf. Sound pullups were inconclusive. The one saving thing was that the rolls came in the original plastic lab tins, each labeled with the footage and the lengths of R2, R3, and R4 were substantially different so as to identify which was which. Oh yeah, there also were squares of green plastic tape stuck in the middle of the film about a foot from each end. Naturally it left my hands nice and tidy and neatly labeled. The festival projectionist will not have a clue what he or she missed out on.  |  IP: Logged Fred Georges Master Film Handler Posts: 257 From: Lombard, IL, USA Registered: Jun 2000 posted 02-19-2003 06:23 PM                     Dear Steve, I AM that festivals projectionist(LoL). I get to sort out prints like that EVERY Damn year! Thanks so much for putting it back in good order (why should I have ALL the FUN!). Between all that great (FREE) Guiness & general revelry it's a wonder ANYTHING even gets up on Screen. It's a very fun festival though and I look forward to doing it each year.  |  IP: Logged Steve Kraus Film God Posts: 4094 From: Chicago, IL, USA Registered: May 2000 posted 02-19-2003 08:48 PM                    Heheh small world...well I think we got it right but there are no guarantees! And I thought that one was going to be easier than How Harry Became a Tree which came with the leaders rolled up within the plastic tins.  |  IP: Logged Steve Kraus Film God Posts: 4094 From: Chicago, IL, USA Registered: May 2000 posted 02-21-2003 02:20 PM                    OK, here is another one to out and this time I can at least name the theatre: The Uptown Palladium 12 in Birmingham, Michigan. Film Done Wrong charges include: (1) Making new cuts instead of breaking existing leader splices (2) Returning print with leaders masking taped on (and flopped in some cases) (3) Using cheap, thin, milky white splicing tape for their build. (Fortunately peelable.) I can attest to the above because a print I had earlier this week went there and came back to me and the ETS label that sent it to them showed as shipping date the date it left here so little chance a third party was involved.  |  IP: Logged Chris Wootten Film Handler Posts: 50 From: Moonlit Cinema, RAAF Tindal, N.T. Australia Registered: Dec 1999 posted 02-23-2003 08:06 AM                     Hi all. Having just returned after a long enforced absence, I have read this topic with a lot of foreboding. I have been involved in the industry in OZ since 1988, when all projectionists had to have a licence to work in a Cinema, and had to pass stringent tests to run a projection room. My time as a film handler during this time was a pleasure. I (maybe I was lucky??) did not have many problems with films because you knew you were dealing with other professionals. In the early 90's it was decded by the powers that be that this would no longer be required. I know of a cinema in a major city close to me where the candy bar boy is also the projectionist. The show that they provide the paying customers is woeful. During a screening I attended, the focus was out and the volume was WAY too loud. I tried to get the problem rectified, but was told that the candy bar had to be manned and so nothing was done. I really cannot understand how Cinemas with this lack of professionalism stay in business. Anyway, to the few who take pride in the way they operate, I salute you. Keep up the good work.  |  IP: Logged John Spooner Expert Film Handler Posts: 186 From: South Australia, Australia Registered: Jan 2003 posted 02-23-2003 08:41 AM                     Chris Wooten. Dear Chris, fully concur with your observations in your post. The business of the candy bar person is sad but fact even in South Aust cinemas, in Adelaide the 16yo candy bar "operators" are colloquially called choc-tops. Yet these people would be the first to call us old fashioned. I would dearly love to see a choc top run a carbon arc and 2000 ft spool situation with no automation and manual light dimmers. I went for my licence when Ralph Turner was inspector, a tough but fair man ( ex projectionist)in Adelaide.The pass was 98% When the licences were discontinued, a lot of the experienced projectionists retired or were paid out. We call it "Mc Donalds Mentality". Regards. John Spooner. Adelaide SA.  |  IP: Logged Chris Byrne Expert Film Handler Posts: 102 From: Kirwan, Australia Registered: Jan 2003 posted 02-24-2003 01:56 AM                     Hey John. You have nailed it on the head. My latest trainee has been given 10 shifts in the 'deep end' before she goes solo. That equates to 70 hours training, and I haven't even been given the go ahead for a bottle of Film Guard to fix all the prints that are likely to get scratched. I don't understand this cost cutting mentality?  |  IP: Logged Bill Gabel Film God Posts: 3873 From: Technicolor / Postworks NY, USA Registered: Jan 2002 posted 02-24-2003 01:19 PM                     Heres another theatre to add to the list. Regal Beach Blvd. 18 in Jacksonville, Florida. They had a screening of "Dysfunktional Family". The print played here in New York for one screening last week, before being shipped out to Regal Beach Blvd. 18. I ran the NY screening with a new print. It was returned with the leaders masking taped on and flopped on one of the leaders. (cheap masking tape) They also made a cut in the middle of one of the leaders and flopped the track on that reel. And the poor use of Zebra tape. (lines go on the frameline, not the picture). The end cue in the middle of the picture. (this is a hard matted picture there was plenty of space to put the cues without putting them in the picture frame). The only thing they did right was to only cut one frame for ID. This was a new print and the Sky Courier Bill of Lading list them as the last theatre and date this print played. Today I have a screening of the picture. I looked at the cans and saw the Regal Theatre name. I was right it was Film Done Wrong  |  IP: Logged Bill Gabel Film God Posts: 3873 From: Technicolor / Postworks NY, USA Registered: Jan 2002 posted 03-04-2003 05:56 PM                     Whats funny about this post is that. It could be a copy of the post I did back on Feb 24th. The only thing that changed was the theatre. Because its the same print of "Dysfunktional Family" came back to me. This was a brand new print when I started using it, a month & half ago. Now the heads and tails have been hacked up. On the Sky Courier's Bill of Lading, shows that this print last played at Catalina 6 Theatres in Tucson , Arizona. Thanks for Doing Film Wrong PS: Fix your splicer (cuts like )  |  IP: Logged Joseph D. Olson Film Handler Posts: 26 From: Seattle, WA, USA Registered: Jun 2002 posted 03-05-2003 01:50 AM                        I've been given more than enough evidence to stop using masking tape.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 100 pages: 1  2  3  ...  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  ...  98  99  100

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.