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 9)

This topic comprises 100 pages: 1  2  3  ...  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  ...  98  99  100

Author Topic: Hey you, you suck! (AKA: Outing bad film handlers) Steve Kraus Film God Posts: 4094 From: Chicago, IL, USA Registered: May 2000 posted 02-12-2003 08:29 AM                    That some folks are cheap and ignorant doesn't make it right. Splice tape can be removed (except the very worst of the thin white tape) and even if one doesn't want to take a lot of time removing residue, if any, the new tape will cover it. Masking tape as bad enough as a reel end hold-down (and does a rather poor job of it) but it should NEVER be used on "live" film. If you're going to be one of those lazy bozos who do not reattach leaders in order to save 5 seconds per reel at least use white artist's tape to protect the film. You came to the wrong place if you're going to try to justify bad film handling practices.  |  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 02-12-2003 09:09 AM                        I agree with Steve. You might as well use water to stick the end of the film to the reel.  |  IP: Logged John Pytlak Film God Posts: 9987 From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922 Registered: Jan 2000 posted 02-12-2003 09:37 AM                        The problem with masking tape or other "substitutes for the real thing" is that the adhesives used vary all over the map. My experience is that most tend to either dry out quickly, coming undone and sometimes leaving a crumbly residue, or become gooey and ooze over everything. Masking tape was designed to only be on a surface for a few hours while painting, and quickly be removed. It may end up being on the print for weeks or months, giving it time to decompose and make a mess.  |  IP: Logged Joseph D. Olson Film Handler Posts: 26 From: Seattle, WA, USA Registered: Jun 2002 posted 02-12-2003 05:08 PM                        But nobody has said anything of missing frames.  |  IP: Logged John T. Hendrickson, Jr Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 889 From: Freehold, NJ, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 02-12-2003 06:35 PM                     Joseph- Steve Kraus addressed that. "Splice tape can be removed." There simply is no need to reattach heads and tails with masking tape. Folks don't have to "cut" frames, just take off the damned tape and splice the heads and tails back on! Being a first run operation, I don't get many used prints, but when I do, and the heads and tails are attached with masking tape, it drives me dog nuts. It's bad enough when people chop out frames, so why compound the problem by using masking tape?  |  IP: Logged Darryl Spicer Film God Posts: 3250 From: Lexington, KY, USA Registered: Dec 2000 posted 02-12-2003 07:32 PM                    you know if there is such a big problem with removing the old splice tape. Just leave it on there and use a piece of fresh splice tape to join the heads back on. No more masking tape. If you can do that much it is a plus. To be honest, if you are not reading these forums you probably chop off the frame even if it had the old splicing tape removed and a fresh piece put on. Just get rid of the masking tape. If the next guy cares he will remove the old tape to keep from loosing a frame.  |  IP: Logged Gracia L. Babbidge Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 709 From: Bowdoin, Maine Registered: Aug 2000 posted 02-13-2003 01:21 AM                        It is also worth mentioning that if heads and tails are reattched to a reel with a single-sided splice, the splice tape is much easier to remove than a two-sided splice. "Haste makes waste." No excuses for laziness!  |  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 02-13-2003 01:42 AM                        quote: But nobody has said anything of missing frames. Masking tape causes missing frames. Since the glue residue is nearly impossible to get off, most people will just chop off the frames that had masking tape on them. If they don't they'll end up losing even more frames when their platter has a brain wrap caused by the film sticking together.  |  IP: Logged Christopher Seo Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 530 From: Los Angeles, CA Registered: Jun 99 posted 02-13-2003 03:27 AM                     I think Joseph is referring to other people's practices of cutting off the spliced frames rather than his own. We can't fault someone for trying to figure out the best practice to follow under suboptimal circumstances. High-quality masking tape probably is easier under certain circumstances, such as during film festivals where prints will be built up and broken down within a very short timespan. The bottom line is that this is not an ideal world. Frames will always be chopped off with abandon, no matter what. Cheap, old splicing tape will also leave a horrible residue when it's peeled off. And so on and so forth.  |  IP: Logged Joseph D. Olson Film Handler Posts: 26 From: Seattle, WA, USA Registered: Jun 2002 posted 02-13-2003 03:17 PM                        That's true. I was mostly referring to the company's policy of always removing the whole frame. Granted, until a couple days ago, I saw no reason not to use masking tape at all, and I'm definitely going to consider breaking the habit now, but still... why is removing splicing tape against the rules? It makes no sense. Also, if you'll forgive the ignorance of a still-wet-behind-the-ears newbie, how is masking tape more damaging to film than lighter fluid?  |  IP: Logged Scott Norwood Film God Posts: 8146 From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas) Registered: Jun 99 posted 02-13-2003 03:25 PM                        What wonderful company came up with the brilliant "always chop the last frame" policy? Enquiring minds want to know! My argument against using masking tape to reattach head and tail leaders when breaking film down from a platter or large reels is this: distributors have a responsibility to provide exhibitors with prints which can be projected without needing repairs at the theatre level. Similarly, exhibitors have a responsibility to return their prints to the distributors in playable condition. The only way to achieve this is to properly splice the head and tail leaders back onto each reel. Single-sided splicing is a reasonable compromise; most projectors will run single-sided splices just fine (at least for the first show), and single-sided splices almost ensure that a future platter/large reel house will peel the splicing tape rather than chop off frames. (This doesn't mean that anyone should run a print that hasn't been thoroughly inspected. I'm just trying to make the point that film inspection at the theatre level _should_ be unnecessary and redundant.)  |  IP: Logged Mathew Molloy Master Film Handler Posts: 357 From: The Santa Cruz Mountains Registered: Nov 2000 posted 02-13-2003 03:40 PM                     Joseph, if you were to see the two circuited prints of Adaptation I had to build last week, you'd understand why using masking tape is worse than cutting frames. The bozo who attached the ends to the tails on the hubs of the reels with masking tape did it in such a way that it was off-center. As the reel was filled it cinched the ends against the edge of the reel so badly I had to cut off six inches or so of frames as it was unplayable. As to your question of using lighter fluid - first of all if the heads and tails were spliced on properly with GOOD splice tape and not masking or poor-quality splice tape then lighter fluid isn't even a necessity. However, AFAIK, lighter fluid is a quick-drying solvent that doesn't harm the film (at least in limited use). Tho' if you're still using lighter fluid it's time to make the switch to FilmGuard.  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 02-13-2003 03:47 PM                     I am copying a picture from the first page of this thread to show the damage Matt is talking about. Look how stupid this is. First off, the bonehead chopped off TWO id frames. Now I can understand cutting off one, but NEVER more than one, so we have already lost 2 frames per reel change right there. Then we lost 3 MORE because the doofus used masking tape for breakdown. Now we have effectively lost 5 frames...and that's assuming that the original splicer cuts align up properly and the next guy doesn't have to lose another frame or two in order to make a proper splice. Unless you are going to gum up your splicer by actually using masking tape AS splicing tape, this is the sort of nonsense that almost always happens.  |  IP: Logged Duncan Smith Film Handler Posts: 50 From: England Registered: Jan 2003 posted 02-13-2003 03:51 PM                     SO many points of view I really haven't got time to read it all, sorry. One thing I want to mention, especially as I've just had a print returned to me from running it a few months ago, is the disastrous practice of bad splices. By this I mean ones that are so bad they are nearly a whole perf short! This means that I cannot get a decent splice when making up the film and HAVE to cut out the remaining frame to get rid of the canyon that exists between reels. Some people must have their splicers set up very badly indeed. And another thing, who the hell writes the reel number on each frame, covering the entire frame in white ink for 8 frames at the head and tail of each reel??!!! I'll tell you who...the burk who showed the print I've just made up sometime in the last few months. Goog grief, it could drive you to drink! If I knew who it was I'd shame them big time!  |  IP: Logged John Pytlak Film God Posts: 9987 From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922 Registered: Jan 2000 posted 02-13-2003 03:54 PM                        Lighter fluid is usually just naphtha, a moderately fast evaporating solvent that has no adverse effect on the film. It IS flammable however, so be careful about the fire hazard if you choose to use lighter fluid to remove adhesive. Most any solvent-based film cleaner will work well too, including FilmGuard: http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/hse/solvent.jhtml  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 100 pages: 1  2  3  ...  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  ...  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.