Film-Tech Cinema Systems
  Home     Products     Store     Forum     Warehouse     Contact Us    
Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE
Topic Closed  Topic Closed


  
my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » Hey you, you suck! (AKA: Outing bad film handlers) (Page 30)

 
This topic comprises 100 pages: 1  2  3  ...  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  ...  98  99  100   
Author Topic: Hey you, you suck! (AKA: Outing bad film handlers)
Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

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

- posted 03-02-2004 06:54 AM      Profile for Steve Guttag   Email Steve Guttag   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
When you say "only send the archive prints to reel-to-reel houses," it leaves a bad taste in the mouths of the platter projectionists.
And I say...So What? The industry should care what "platter projectionists feel?" That is more of a line for the political forum anyway.

If you don't have the proper tools for the job, you should be denied the job, plain and simple...no making excuses for the incorrect tools. A platter facility should be denied "archival" or rare prints.

I have also stated that even the building up of the print on 6K reels should be banned for such prints for the same reason...no cuts are splicing should be done as a course of action just to show the movie...only for repairs.

Stop whining and step up to the plate and provide a proper facitity for showing the product you want.

As to how various operators handle the film...just look over the id-frames topics...do you leave zero, one, two or even feet of ID frames...everyone's got an opinion...do you splice both sides, one-side....etc...You couldn't line up a set of theatres that would treat the film identically.

This has nothing to do with being a "reel-to-reel projectionist" versus a "platter projectionist"...it has everything to do with the film's longevitiy.

Steve

 |  IP: Logged
Frank Angel
Film God

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

- posted 03-02-2004 12:31 PM      Profile for Frank Angel   Author's Homepage   Email Frank Angel   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I have also stated that even the building up of the print on 6K reels should be banned for such prints for the same reason...no cuts are splicing should be done as a course of action just to show the movie...only for repairs.
Quite! The prints that we recently got from Universal's Classics vault were clearly marked "ARCHIVAL PRINT -- NO PLATTERS/NO LONG PLAY REELS -- DO NOT SPLICE." So at least someone out there is finally getting it right.

If I were head of a studio classics department, I would do a lot more to track and police the theatres and the equipement that is being used as well as what kind of track record a rep/art house has, before letting them have at my newly struck print. And damaged footage would damn well be charged back to the theatre. A couple of big repair bills and the theatre owners might realize that it is cheaper to hire a trained, conscientious projectionist than to constantly have to pay for lab work.

Look, there was a time when prints had longevity of decades, not months and got circuited between dozens, even hundreds of theatres in first run, subrun, under-belly and then all over again in re-release. I first worked in a neighborhood theatre in Texas that was at the end of that kind of trickle down release pattern; we got titles that were months old after they played all the big theatres in Houston and then its suburbs. They finally got to us. Prints were almost always in decent condition and rarely did I see the kind of damage that I see today when prints have played only two or three other theatres. There is no reason why prints properly treated cannot last in near mint condition for many decades. They did years ago, and that was before FilmGuard!!

 |  IP: Logged
John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000

- posted 03-02-2004 01:32 PM      Profile for John Pytlak   Author's Homepage   Email John Pytlak   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
If anything, prints on ESTAR base should last even longer than triacetate prints. ESTAR base is much more durable, and dimensionally stable (negligible shrinkage). It is not prone to "vinegar syndrome", even if stored improperly. [Cool]

But its super strength is unforgiving if you have a misthread or jam. [Eek!]

 |  IP: Logged
Jeff Taylor
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 601
From: Chatham, NJ/East Hampton, NY
Registered: Apr 2000

- posted 03-02-2004 03:49 PM      Profile for Jeff Taylor   Email Jeff Taylor   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
John, any progress in making estar prints less susceptible to emulsion scratches?

 |  IP: Logged
Jesse Skeen
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1517
From: Sacramento, CA
Registered: Aug 2000

- posted 03-02-2004 07:52 PM      Profile for Jesse Skeen   Email Jesse Skeen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
The solution to that is to fire people who cause them!

 |  IP: Logged
John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000

- posted 03-03-2004 05:39 AM      Profile for John Pytlak   Author's Homepage   Email John Pytlak   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Prints on polyester base are no more susceptable to emulsion scratches than those that were on triacetate base. It is well known that "full coat" post-process lubrication can really help reduce scratching of both sides.

 |  IP: Logged
Michael Schaffer
"Where is the
Boardwalk Hotel?"

Posts: 4143
From: Boston, MA
Registered: Apr 2002

- posted 03-03-2004 06:22 AM      Profile for Michael Schaffer   Author's Homepage   Email Michael Schaffer   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Here`s my solution to the scratched prints problem: when you walk into a theater and see a badly scratched print, the projectionist on duty gets a write-up, no matter if he scratched the print himself (herself) or not. Seems tough? Seems unjust or smacks of making an example? No. Think about it: the projectionist is supposed to check the quality of presentation - focus, framing, print condition etc - every show. If he (she) goes on duty, runs his (her) first round of movies on the shift, checks the presentation quality and notices a damaged print, he can go to the manager on duty and report the print damage. Then he (she) won`t be held responsible. On the other hand, if he (she) doesn`t check the presentation quality, runs a couple of shows with a messed up print, and doesn`t even notice - then he (she) has fully deserved the write-up.
That practice does indeed get rid of print damage.

 |  IP: Logged
Scott Norwood
Film God

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

- posted 03-03-2004 06:55 AM      Profile for Scott Norwood   Author's Homepage   Email Scott Norwood   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
DLP gets rid of print damage, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea or doesn't cause other problems.

 |  IP: Logged
Dean Kollet
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 591
From: Florida State University
Registered: Jul 2003

- posted 03-03-2004 08:35 AM      Profile for Dean Kollet   Email Dean Kollet   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Here`s my solution to the scratched prints problem: when you walk into a theater and see a badly scratched print, the projectionist on duty gets a write-up, no matter if he scratched the print himself herself or not. Seems tough? Seems unjust or smacks of making an example? No. Think about it: the projectionist is supposed to check the quality of presentation - focus, framing, print condition etc - every show. If he she goes on duty, runs his her first round of movies on the shift, checks the presentation quality and notices a damaged print, he can go to the manager on duty and report the print damage. Then he she won`t be held responsible. On the other hand, if he she doesn`t check the presentation quality, runs a couple of shows with a messed up print, and doesn`t even notice - then he she has fully deserved the write-up.
That practice does indeed get rid of print damage.
in theory, that's a great idea. But, considering I make 5.90 an hour to run projectors, buildup/breakdown, change out slides and make sure everything is running correctly, it would anger me more than anything. I check shows constantly but sometimes even in doing that I could miss one. Sometimes I just don't have the time...now say if someone is running less than 8 projectors and that's all they are doing, GREAT idea....but in the times of companies getting every cent out of their booth personel...it's tough and I'd take offence if I missed a tiny scratch due to the fact that I was simply doing more than I should (or better yet, if I was helping them on concession and/or cleaning theatres)

 |  IP: Logged
Frank Angel
Film God

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

- posted 03-03-2004 11:56 AM      Profile for Frank Angel   Author's Homepage   Email Frank Angel   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
All my career I have been blessed with only running change-over, single screens, first in commercial theatres (before the cursed invention of the godzilla-plex) and after that in specialty venues, and I am truly, totally in awe of you guys who have to deal with the pressures of today's assembly-line multiplex booths. I am sure what you do is a completely different experience and requires a whole other set of organizational skills that would probably take me a long time to master. And then to hear what they want to pay you...it's as appalling as it is unconscionable. May exhibition management forever find crumbs in their beds. My hat is off to all multiplex projectionists.

And to those half-wit critics, some directors included, who you hear badmouthing what they call "lousy projection" with the inference that today's state of poor presentation is all the fault of incompetent projectionists with nary a glance at what theatre management has done to degrade that profession, I say, "Hey....YOU SUCK!"

Frank

 |  IP: Logged
Jesse Skeen
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1517
From: Sacramento, CA
Registered: Aug 2000

- posted 03-03-2004 06:24 PM      Profile for Jesse Skeen   Email Jesse Skeen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I reported scratched prints the minute I noticed them, to make sure the higher-ups knew that there were people scratching films and also so they knew that I was noticing this type of thing and I wouldn't get blamed for it. Someone should get written up for not noticing a scratched print even if they didn't cause it, since if they don't notice that they also aren't paying attention to what's going on the screen!

 |  IP: Logged
Daryl C. W. O'Shea
Film God

Posts: 3977
From: Midland Ontario Canada (where Panavision & IMAX lenses come from)
Registered: Jun 2002

- posted 03-03-2004 06:35 PM      Profile for Daryl C. W. O'Shea   Author's Homepage   Email Daryl C. W. O'Shea   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
You'd have no problem Frank. I've found that running a twin theatre with change-overs is about as much work as running a 10 plex by yourself.

 |  IP: Logged
Carl Martin
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1424
From: Oakland, CA, USA
Registered: Feb 2002

- posted 03-04-2004 03:15 AM      Profile for Carl Martin   Author's Homepage   Email Carl Martin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
are there twins with changeovers on both screens and only one operator? yikes. i would think no matter how carefully you planned and scheduled, you'd someday end up with 2 changeovers happening at once and be screwed. or were you just lucky, daryl?

carl

 |  IP: Logged
Steve Kraus
Film God

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

- posted 03-04-2004 07:52 AM      Profile for Steve Kraus     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Probably means 6000' reels. Hardly counts.

 |  IP: Logged
Chris Hipp
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1462
From: Mesquite, Tx (east of Dallas)
Registered: Jul 2003

- posted 03-04-2004 08:53 AM      Profile for Chris Hipp   Email Chris Hipp   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
are there twins with changeovers on both screens and only one operator? yikes. i would think no matter how carefully you planned and scheduled, you'd someday end up with 2 changeovers happening at once and be screwed. or were you just lucky, daryl?
Ever heard of a thing called Automation? [Smile]

I also tend to agree with Michael. If someone isn't paying attention enough to notice the scratch then they are probably the one who caused it. However, when you have 1 person running 30 screens you have to be somewhat lenient on it.

As ridiculous as it may sound, my booth runs better and my presentations are far better than when I was able to have multiple operators. However, if I had it my way it wouldnt be happening. But I am noone important, just the guy that gets in trouble for EVERYTHING in booth, which most problems are related in some way to penny pinhcing the hours.

 |  IP: Logged


All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
This topic comprises 100 pages: 1  2  3  ...  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  ...  98  99  100   
   Open Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic    next oldest topic   next newest topic
- Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:



Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2

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.

© 1999-2020 Film-Tech Cinema Systems, LLC. All rights reserved.