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 31)

This topic comprises 100 pages: 1  2  3  ...  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  ...  98  99  100

Author Topic: Hey you, you suck! (AKA: Outing bad film handlers) Frank Angel Film God Posts: 5305 From: Brooklyn NY USA Registered: Dec 1999 posted 03-04-2004 12:27 PM                        Although I am probably straying enough off topic here to get a finger wagged at me, just an interesting note -- the Brooklyn Academy of Music added cinema a few years ago to their prestigous live performances roster. They quad-ed what was once their very beautiful Opera House into the BAM Rose Cinemas. Unfortunately, the only viable design called for a double decker booth, upstairs and downstairs, connected by a rung ladder (I told them it would be a hated booth by projectionists). Originally, and against my recommendation, they put platters in all four booths -- try moving prints up and down a rung ladder!! Anyway, about a year after they began operations, they decided they had to rip out two of the platters and convert two of the booths to change-over. It simply was impossible for one man to make up and break down four screens on a format that changed so frequently. So to answer Carl's question, yup, here's a quad with change-over booths on two screens and only one projectionist....albeit one very, very cranky projectionist.  |  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 03-04-2004 06:34 PM                        True, 6000' reels are cheating, but running 2000' reels on two screens isn't impossible. I do it once in a while when it makes things easier. Once in a while you might get caught but I make sure there's somebody around that can cover the odd changeover if needed... that's rare though, I just run fast instead. Actually, running is only part of it. I measure the roll diameter of each reel to figure out what to start first and how long to space out the starts. Nonetheless, running 6000' reels is less work and about equal to running a 10 plex by yourself. So that means that running a 10 plex is less work than running regular changeovers.  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 03-04-2004 08:12 PM                     I've found it just the opposite Daryl...running changeover screens to be significantly less work than platter screens. The work is more steady but less rushed. I'd take 10 changeover screens over 10 platter screens any day as far as the work is concerned. Steve  |  IP: Logged Steve Kraus Film God Posts: 4094 From: Chicago, IL, USA Registered: May 2000 posted 03-04-2004 08:56 PM                    I think we've been down this road. For makeup, breakdown, and changing trailers, reels would seem to be easier. For general operation hmm...threading two machines is maybe a bit easier than a single machine and lacing a platter. Almost a wash. But having to haul the hour reels to a rewind bench twice per show? Not sure how overall that would be less work than a platter unless you have on-projector rewinding.  |  IP: Logged Chris Medley Expert Film Handler Posts: 180 From: McKinney, TX, USA Registered: Jan 2004 posted 03-05-2004 11:16 AM                        I was beyond pissed off when I was told we recived a print in circuit that had the heads and tails attached by a very very stupid method.....can you guess???? They licked the film and stuck the two pieces togther....not kidding at all!!! What ass would do that??? This cannot be a SMPTE RP...no way  |  IP: Logged John Pytlak Film God Posts: 9987 From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922 Registered: Jan 2000 posted 03-05-2004 02:14 PM                        SMPTE Recommended Practice RP 111 specifies 35mm film splices. Let's see: Cemented, Ultrasonic Weld, Splicing Tape... Nope, I can't find saliva splices.  |  IP: Logged Greg Mueller Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1687 From: Port Gamble, WA Registered: Jun 99 posted 03-06-2004 08:35 AM                        A curse on those who do not break prints down at the reel end, but instead use scissors to cut the film when the reel is full, often within a few feet of the actual reel end. How lazy can you possibly get.  |  IP: Logged Scott Norwood Film God Posts: 8146 From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas) Registered: Jun 99 posted 03-06-2004 10:59 AM                        Greg--you mean that you're not supposed to do it that way? John--maybe RP111 needs to be updated to include this new method.  |  IP: Logged Steve Kraus Film God Posts: 4094 From: Chicago, IL, USA Registered: May 2000 posted 03-06-2004 12:47 PM                    OK, I'll bite (no pun): How do you know it was saliva?  |  IP: Logged Frank Angel Film God Posts: 5305 From: Brooklyn NY USA Registered: Dec 1999 posted 03-06-2004 05:18 PM                        Steve, don't even go there! OK, last night I decided to take in LOTR/ROTK at the Lincoln Square Sony/Cineplex/Loews or whoever the heck owns it. Since I attended the SMPTE hosted IMAX demo of their 35mm film to 15/70 digital blowups at this theatre, I mistakenly thought that I would be seeing that treatment done to ROTK. WRONG. What surprised me was that they played a snipe immediately prior to the film (and after a tedius 5 adverts and 4 trailers) that pronounced with text on the screen and voice-over track, that the film we were about to see was not an IMAX presentation and that it used standard 35mm film and projection equipment and was NOT the high quality picture and sound that is presented with the IMAX experience. To which one audience member shouted out, "So what the hell did we come here for?", which got a big laugh all round. Actually, I didn't think it was so funny given that the announcement basically just told us in no uncertain terms that what we were about to see was crap even though we just paid a premium $12 to see it in an IMAX theatre. But that's not why I am putting this is in the Outing thread. Beyond the rather hazy marketing information which, purposely or not, gave one the impression that they were offering ROTK "in IMAX" which prompted me to trek into Manhattan and deal with the Friday night movie-going crowd (normally I would prefer having root-canal sans anesthesia rather than braving weekend nights in New York), my complaints here about this print is that it had a number of drops back to analog at splices. The system was not well balanced because when this happened the sound bounced up much louder and then back down again when the digital returned. But what was worse, was that the end of the last reel had multiple drops to analog with their attendant blasts in level, but it also had big scratches, dirt and the misregistration that comes when film that has been folded on itself and creased passes through the gate. Then, toward the end of the credits, there was a major splice/jump with a big chunk of music missing. Now this was a first run engagement at this theatre, even though it has been playing for quite awhile and although I do not know with absolute certainty I would say that in all probability, this print has lived only in this theatre. It is very surprising and dismaying that 1) IMAX projectionists would cause that kind of severe damage to prints, but worse that 2) a flagship theatre like the Lincoln Square wouldn't get replacement reels for such damage? After all, this title is on its last legs and there should be no shortage of available prints. It also leaves speculation about what projectionists actually run the 35mm equipment -- could it be that Loews treats 35mm engagements in the IMAX room the same as the rest of the complex? Could they send managers in to do these 35mm shows? Say it isn't so. Also, the Loews corporate logo Feature Presentation snipe looked like someone had unrolled it and laid it across the lobby floor for about a week for people to walk over. It was filthy -- black dirt dancing the screen around like freakin roaches. So here I thought I was going to see an IMAX quality picture and sound, and instead I got 35mm with the same print problems I could encounter in any run-of-the-mill, assembly-line mulitplex. And then to pour salt in the wounds, on the IMAX screen I was treated to the additional spectacle of an image with no masking whatsoever - you really become aware of how much roughness and unevenness at the picture perimeter a mask covers, once it's gone. And of course this theatre runs 3D so the screen is silverized which caused noticeable falloff at one end of the picture. That being said, I would love to find out what 35mm equipment they have installed because the image was bright (at least on my side of the screen) and very good focus even out to the edges plus a rock steady image....not an easy feat when you've got something like a 70ft width and a relatively short throw. Then, the final kick in the ass, as soon as "The End" title came on the screen -- about 15min before the actual END of the film, the soundtrack was dropped and an usher came on the PA babbling about how he hoped we enjoyed our visit to the Loews IMAX theater and to come again and blah blah blah. I almost expected him to thank us for choosing to fly Loews Airlines. I was glad to see that a good portion of the audience stayed put until the final frame of the film -- a respect that should be given the hundreds of people (in this case, probably thousands) who work on a film you've just enjoyed. It also was a statement to the "thank you" person that his announcement before the actual end of the film was very inappropriate. Frank  |  IP: Logged Adam Martin I'm not even gonna point out the irony. Posts: 3686 From: Dallas, TX Registered: Nov 2000 posted 03-06-2004 05:46 PM                     quote: What surprised me was that they played a snipe immediately prior to the film (and after a tedius 5 adverts and 4 trailers) that pronounced with text on the screen and voice-over track, that the film we were about to see was not an IMAX presentation and that it used standard 35mm film and projection equipment and was NOT the high quality picture and sound that is presented with the IMAX experience. When theaters present 35mm films on the Imax screen, Imax requires many theaters to notify viewers that they are not, in fact, seeing "Imax". People generally assume "it's in the Imax theater, so it must be Imax" and Imax, as a brand, wants to make it clear that 35mm is not 15/70 by any stretch of the imagination, no matter how perfect the presentation is. This all started several years ago with some film company (Dreamworks, I think) issuing a press release that their film "is being released in Imax theaters". This was, in fact, another case of 35mm "drive-in" prints being distributed to these theaters.  |  IP: Logged Gordon McLeod Film God Posts: 9532 From: Toronto Ontario Canada Registered: Jun 99 posted 03-06-2004 07:48 PM                     We filed those disclaimers in the round bin and told them to take a hike We own the Projector so they can't dictate squat as to how the theatre runs and we are quite clear in our adds to never mention IMAX for 35mm and 70mm presentations  |  IP: Logged John Hawkinson Film God Posts: 2273 From: Cambridge, MA, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 03-07-2004 12:37 PM                     Carl Martin asked "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." After talking to Evans , I decided to run a simulation (I used Nickle). I ballparked that 14% of reels are within a minute of 18 minutes, 1% are within a minute of 10 minutes, and 9% are within a minute of 21 minutes, and the probabilitie by minute are linear on either side of 18. I figured the a movie is either 5 or 6 reels, with equal probability. In this hypothetical twin, the second movie is scheduled to start such that midpoint of the the second movie's first reel takes place at the changeover from reel one to reel two of the first movie. I figured that if you're an ace projectionist, and you know right where the reel change is, you can manage to deal if the changeovers are at least 10 seconds apart (assuming one booth for both screens), and you can definitely deal if they're one minute apart. The results are pretty stable across number of trials: > trials(100) In 100 trials, 31 collided within 1 minute (31%), 6 within 10 seconds (6%). > trials(1000) In 1000 trials, 325 collided within 1 minute (32.5%), 57 within 10 seconds (5.7%). > trials(10000) In 10000 trials, 3280 collided within 1 minute (32.8%), 656 within 10 seconds (6.56%). It's probably possible to improve on this with a better scheduling algorithm, though, instead of the above naive one that only optimizes based on the first reel change. --jhawk  |  IP: Logged Steve Kraus Film God Posts: 4094 From: Chicago, IL, USA Registered: May 2000 posted 03-07-2004 01:35 PM                    But Jayhawk, you have not taken into account the laws of Resistentialism which in this situation means that sooner or later you WILL get screwed.  |  IP: Logged Carl Martin Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1424 From: Oakland, CA, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 03-08-2004 12:56 AM                        and how often does an operator get to optimize the schedule to his requirements over those of the "ground level"? quote: -- about 15min before the actual END of the film, the soundtrack was dropped and an usher came on the PA babbling about how he hoped we enjoyed our visit to the Loews IMAX theater and to come again and blah blah blah. holy shite, that's unconscionable. the damage was accidental (not an excuse), but that was a willful interruption of the show. and you paid extra for this? you should demand a pass from the manager, then rip it to shreds in front of him. carl  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 100 pages: 1  2  3  ...  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  ...  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.