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 48)

This topic comprises 100 pages: 1  2  3  ...  45  46  47  48  49  50  51  ...  98  99  100

Author Topic: Hey you, you suck! (AKA: Outing bad film handlers) John Pytlak Film God Posts: 9987 From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922 Registered: Jan 2000 posted 08-28-2004 01:04 PM                        In the USA, the processed rolls are usually shipped to the exchanges on 4-inch lab cores, packed in corrugated cardboard cartons as complete print sets. Waterproof packaging (plastic bags or shrink wrap) may be used on each reel. The exchanges (e.g., TES, ETS) mount the rolls on the split flange shipping reels, using the 4-inch lab core as the hub (no rewinding needed). I would hope that the operator mounting the rolls on reels would notice if the film was really wet or damp. The reels are then stored and shipped in the familiar octagonal "ICC" (old US Interstate Commerce Commission that regulated shipping of nitrate film) style shipping cases. If the shipping cases are in good condition, they offer reasonable protection against the weather (if they are upright), but they are not waterproof. Water could seep in if left on their side. If an entire print really got wet, it likely occurred in the cardboard box shipping, or if a shipping case was left on its side in a puddle. A process machine drying problem would usually only affect one reel, since the other reels would have been processed on different machines/days.  |  IP: Logged Bill Langfield Master Film Handler Posts: 280 From: Prospect, NSW, Australia Registered: Apr 2001 posted 08-28-2004 01:47 PM                        John, almost the exact same you just described happens here. (in Oz) - but mostly the the trunks are not used anymore in mainstream due to the added weight. We in the arthouse circuit (mostly) still use them though, clearly it a safer place for the film to be stored. (And that definatley includes the 70mm prints) Oh, the shrink wrap, sucks, 9 out 10 the stuff has split open, they must use the thinnest stuff they can. OK, we need to ask Dominic a few questions then. Did the print come in a cardboard box, in sealed bags on cores. OR Did it come in trunks on 2000ft reels. As you say there are many shipping methods, but he needs to tell us how his print was packaged when it arrived. But again, I reinterate, as you know a film that is 'wet' from the lab is totally different to water damage.  |  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 08-28-2004 04:12 PM                        Hey Paramount, you suck! Some of my staff and I went to Paramount Canada's Wonderland on Wednesday August 25, 2004 where we waited in line for an hour to see/ride the iWERKS simulator ride "Days of Thunder". It blew! Just some of the presentation flaws included: A dozen or more base scratches down the centre of the frame for the entire length of the film The first 50' or so of the projected film appeared to be green in colour (this wasn't lighting, screen lighting in the auditorium is blue) The picture was pretty far out of focus The lamp appears to have needed to be changed sometime last year and/or is way out of alignment. About 10' of the sides were very dark, and the picture wasn't too bright -- I remember it being A LOT brighter. The sound used to be a lot louder too, but it was passable, although barely. The lecture about pirating the film was also a nice touch. Granted, the print is probably the original print from about 10 years ago (but was only used for about 4 or 5 seasons, about 5 months each), it still looks like crap, and for what it costs to get into the park, it should be a lot better. Definitely iWERKS done wrong!  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 08-28-2004 04:22 PM                     Seen this happen at Six Flags, where I was called over to try and figure out the problem. (Nobody at Six Flags or IWERKS could find it. My guess was they were too concerned about a misthread in the loop cabinet.) I traced it down to a misthread UNDER the lamphouse. To see it, you have to lay down on the floor and shine a flashlight under there at the film path. Basically the film is being threaded over a roller backwards, such that the film is scraping up against a screw that holds the roller bracket. Those center scratches will get worse and worse with every show if they don't get that misthread fixed pronto. The reason I say that is because IWERKS teaches the operators to break the splice and "pull the new film through", as a timesaver so the loop cabinet didn't have to be threaded again when the theater wants to change films. As such, this misthread went unsolved for a couple of years. IWERKS should not have had the film travel underneath the lamphouse. That's an assinine design any way you look at it. The film path should have been in plain view. I completely blame Phil Hill for this.  |  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 08-28-2004 04:33 PM                        Maybe, but since it's on a loop I would have expected a lot more scratches than the dozen or so that were there if it was caused by a misthread that wasn't corrected. The scratches didn't really look that new, so I don't think it was something it was a misthread in progress (although the poor focus could make the scratches look older).  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 08-28-2004 04:35 PM                     Could be that the print got ran for awhile on that misthread, then later the problem was fixed if their new prints don't have those marks. Next time you are there go show them how it's done. See if they are using a 70mm cleaner and FilmGuard as well. Six Flags started using it as a test and reported back that by passing the film through the cleaner on the first (testing) show of the day, that even 2 years later the print looked brand new. Bear in mind this was a 4 minute show that ran over and over for 14-16 hours a day! (That reminds me, they still have one of my cleaners!)  |  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 08-28-2004 04:40 PM                        If it was a misthread at some point, it was clearly corrected. Although the scratches actually look like the film was dragging flat over a roller that ceased. In any case, they suck, they need to spring for a new lamp (and print) and get someone who can see out of at least one eye to align the lamp and mirror. Don't need to go back, Phil was there for the install and I'm sure nothing has changed.  |  IP: Logged Edward Jurich Master Film Handler Posts: 305 From: Las Vegas USA Registered: Jul 2003 posted 08-28-2004 06:55 PM                     A tip-of-the-hat and a hardy thank you to whoever in San Francisco had the print I got of "The Best Two Days" and provided all the emulsion scratches. Not to mention the print is so dirty the gate shoes had dust balls (no kidding) after one run. Oh, and the front of reel 4 on the end of reel 3, we'll just cut this thing anywhere during breakdown  |  IP: Logged Dominic Espinosa Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1172 From: California, U.S.A. Registered: Jan 2004 posted 08-30-2004 04:03 PM                     The film arrived on 2000ft reels in cans. Not cardboard boxes. The reason I assumed it was lab wet was because it didn't seem to be uneven at all. It was just damp enough that it would stick on your finger if you touched it. The temperature of the print and the booth were almost the same when it came in, and to this day it still has a curl to it (a replacement has been requested). I've seen reels that were grainy and hard to focus, like this entire print is, and it seemed to go away when running filmguard on it, which I assumed caused the removal of the lab chemicals. However, and this is the main problem I've had with it, it sheds like hell in the film path. Each show the intermittant, the shoe, the gate, the trap, all dusty with what appears to be emulsion. Meanwhile the still-wet media is picking up lots of colorful deposits, especially green, brown, and purple ones.  |  IP: Logged Steve Scott Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1300 From: Minneapolis, MN Registered: Sep 2000 posted 09-04-2004 10:02 AM                     To the Clinton Theater, Clinton, NY... The next time you send out a print without taping the heads or tails on, you should do so when you're working on reels with flanges. Getting Before Sunset #156 in a plain cardboard box via Network Courier with the heads wound out and tossed around each reel was really great And maybe you should invest in some clear splice tape, rather than using zebra tape to remove lab splices. How much money are you wasting? And did you ever receive DTS discs with this print? If so, I hope you're still enjoying them. And for some more passive aggressive fun, thank you Network Courier for making my theater the only in our circuit to get out print an hour before showtime. With all the above fun, it really sharpened my skills... (Checked my paperwork, it was #156) [ 10-13-2004, 09:38 AM: Message edited by: Steve Scott ]  |  IP: Logged Dominic Espinosa Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1172 From: California, U.S.A. Registered: Jan 2004 posted 09-04-2004 12:26 PM                     And a hearty thank you to Edwards in Simi Valley, CA. Your handling of Benji: Off The Leash. I know your platters don't use any sort of device to provide back tension when breaking down but that doesn't mean they shouldn't! Use your hand or something. All 5 reels made a cone shape and were loose. Also, Zebra tape sucks and so does that fat ass masking tape crap you put the heads and tails on with! And by the way...Why are the heads and tails on backwards? It's not that hard to do, c'mon. I bet "Molly" is behind this...  |  IP: Logged Scott Norwood Film God Posts: 8146 From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas) Registered: Jun 99 posted 09-07-2004 05:34 PM                        Hey, you, whoever last handled Ghostbusters 70mm print #5001, you suck! Hmm...let's see...interesting mix of yellow tape, 35mm zebra tape, and "accordian" splices. Perhaps jhawk has more transgressions to add. Anyway, this is totally unacceptable anywhere, especially with 70mm.  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 09-07-2004 05:56 PM                     Scott, did you run that show reel to reel? PLEASE tell me you removed the accordian array of splices if you ran that reel to reel!!! I see some people try and "preserve" the frames by leaving them on the leaders, and it is one of the stupidest things I have ever seen. Not only is there a great chance that the film will jam amidst all of those splices and cause significant film damage at the reel change, but I have seen accordian splices run through the projector only to jump a sprocket AFTER the gate. Meanwhile the operator stands there all thinking he is some kind of wonderful projectionist for "preserving" those frames...as he sprockets the crap out of the film. BTW, how bad do you think that would look and sound if those frames were projected? hahahahaha Clearly "film done wrong".  |  IP: Logged Steve Kraus Film God Posts: 4094 From: Chicago, IL, USA Registered: May 2000 posted 09-07-2004 06:04 PM                    On the bright side you probably got some good souvenir frames. No point in leaving them in the print. I wouldn't include them in a platter build nor in a reel prepped for reel to reel running so might as well keep them.  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 09-07-2004 06:11 PM                        And "accordian" array of slices is good for nothing. Not even a bookmark. Their existence is outright stupid in the first place, keeping them around would actually constitute an act of retardation and leaving them attached to the print and running them through the projector would be grounds for execution. Certainly no real projectionist does that, do they? I simply cannot imagine that anyone does.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 100 pages: 1  2  3  ...  45  46  47  48  49  50  51  ...  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.