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 92)

This topic comprises 100 pages: 1  2  3  ...  89  90  91  92  93  94  95  ...  98  99  100

Author Topic: Hey you, you suck! (AKA: Outing bad film handlers) Charles Greenlee Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 801 From: Savannah, Ga, U.S. Registered: Jun 2006 posted 06-30-2006 11:25 PM                        Am now, started running cleaner this week. Just found it, and was like, yay! I was just following manufacturers reccomendation using a dry q-tip on the soundhead. I'm using plastic lens safe cleaner on the soundhead lenses because I don't know that they're not plastic. Supposedly the blue dye in the cleaner can dye the lenses, over a period of several years of constant use, and on a red light reader, this can degrade the signal. Thus I use it rarely, but it was very nessicary when I got there. There was a visible cloud on the lenses, that dry cleaning wouldn't get off.  |  IP: Logged Christopher Seo Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 530 From: Los Angeles, CA Registered: Jun 99 posted 07-01-2006 12:30 AM                     Mike Croaro, Regarding "Wordplay", the print (1.85 aspect ratio) did actually have a slight hard matte on the sides and the filmmakers seemed to be fine with having that be visible. Can't explain why you saw the top/bottom matte though.  |  IP: Logged Carl Martin Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1424 From: Oakland, CA, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 07-01-2006 02:40 AM                        hmm, over in the feature info forum, scott norwood says first that wordplay is 1.66 but then that the matte is a little tighter than that. maybe stonestown is running it 1.66? landmark was running a contest promo for the movie, whose image was windowboxed down to about 4:3 iirc, so i'm surprised to hear that's not the case with the feature. i haven't seen it yet though.  |  IP: Logged Christopher Seo Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 530 From: Los Angeles, CA Registered: Jun 99 posted 07-01-2006 09:21 AM                     Carl, That could explain it... seems like there's some confusion over the aspect ratio. I added my two cents to the FITA thread about the producer requesting 1.85 when the film ran at my theatre.  |  IP: Logged Mike Croaro Master Film Handler Posts: 394 From: Millbrae, CA Registered: Apr 2005 posted 07-08-2006 04:57 PM                     Hi Folks: Saw "Who Killed the Electric Car" at the Aquarius last night. Presentation acceptable eventhough the screen was not evenly illumintaed. Top two corners were on the dark side. Mike  |  IP: Logged Wolff King Morrow Master Film Handler Posts: 490 From: Denton, TX, USA Registered: Feb 2004 posted 07-09-2006 09:03 AM                        Last week while building a print, I found a printed note taped to the inside of one of the cans that read as follows: "Regardless of how you received it, please ensure all heads and tails are spliced AND taped on BOTH sides. Charges will encur, thx." WTF? why would you splice and tape both sides? I was splicing one side on the heads and tails as suggested by Brad.  |  IP: Logged John Hawkinson Film God Posts: 2273 From: Cambridge, MA, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 07-09-2006 09:44 AM                     Wolff asks, "Why would you splice and tape both sides?" Remember that splicing one-side is a reasonable compromise between two positions: changeover projectionists would rather the film was spliced on two sides, and platter projectionists would rather it wasn't spliced at all (e.g. taped on a splicer with easy-to-remove paper tape -- aka artist's tape). Evidently the owner of that print chooses more strongly the side of the changeover folks. It's certainly not unreasaonble or nonsensical, but it may not make the most sense today. I'd imagine it depends on who books their prints. It certainly makes more sense than the Warner Craft Vault's requirement that acetate prints be returned head-out. --jhawk  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 07-09-2006 03:54 PM                     quote: John Hawkinson and platter projectionists would rather it wasn't spliced at all (e.g. taped on a splicer with easy-to-remove paper tape -- aka artist's tape). Ummm, maybe shitty platter kiddies, but I don't know of ANY professional projectionist (whether it be changeover or platter) who would rather have anything but a single or double sided splice to rejoin the leaders with.  |  IP: Logged Frank Angel Film God Posts: 5305 From: Brooklyn NY USA Registered: Dec 1999 posted 07-09-2006 04:28 PM                        John is correct. No doubt this is not a current, commercial release. More than likely it is a second run, a rep or an independent print that is playing limited subruns or making the festival circuit where for only a couple of screenings, possibly just one run, the print will not be plattered or even LP mounted, so double-sided splices makes more sense. If the owner/studio/distributor has determined that the majority of venues where the print will play will have change-over operation and limited plays, then requiring that the print be returned ready-to-run would be best for the print since that avoids any splicing or handling the leader joins at all. I have seem quite a number of archive prints out of the Warner and Universal vaults particularly that have similar instructions, usually printed (not hand-written) on labels and attached to each leader, and I remember some that were pretty much word for word. Why the wording sticks in my mind is that I thought it was interesting that the distrib kind of anticipates the typical lazy man's rational...you know the attitude: "It came single spliced, so I don't have to do any more than that when I return it." And of course, as Brad points out, why would any professional be daunted by leaders spliced propertly, be it double or single sided? Maybe it might take a little longer than just pulling apart masking tape, but it affords real protection to the print; anyone willing to give that up just so he can save an extra 30 seconds to pull apart a correctly made splice shouldn't be working in a projection booth -- he gets move to the "shitty platter kiddies" column. As for the "WTF," that's what the projectionist says when he opens a can and finds that leaders attached haphazardly with masking tape or worse, have caused frames to crease and fold over on themselves. Sometimes it isn't about making everything easy.  |  IP: Logged John Hawkinson Film God Posts: 2273 From: Cambridge, MA, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 07-09-2006 04:54 PM                     Sorry, Brad, I didn't mean to misrepresent you platter guys! Though I am a bit puzzled -- I would have thought platter projectionists would prefer to get film taped together with paper tape (as long as its aligned on a splicer so it doesn't give the nasty effect we see on Page 1 of this thread), just because it's a little easier to take apart. Are you saying it's not sufficiently beneficial to outweigh the disadvantage if the next guy is not a platter house? I'd agree with that, but I was thinking of an artificial scenario where you could guarantee the next guy had a platter. Anyhow, do explain, please! --jhawk  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 07-09-2006 10:13 PM                        Any splice not properly made is bad, no matter what kind of projectionist you are. It's as simple as that. I would prefer the leaders be properly spliced on rather than white-taped, because it makes it just a tad bit easier to identify the reel by the reference frame.  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 07-10-2006 12:58 AM                     John, anyone breaking down a print on a platter will either use a splicer, or they won't. Good projectionists use the splicer Shitty projectionists only have a roll of tape at the breakdown table Without the splicer, the ends will almost certainly suffer some physical damage as the print is shipped to the next theater. I can't imagine anyone going to the hassle of bringing a splicer to the breakdown table, yet using a roll of tape to reattach them with using the splicer as an alignment block. It just doesn't happen. At that point it is FAR easier to just make a single sided splice, and those are just as easy to pull apart as a splice made with a random roll of tape. What's sad is that some theaters actually TRAIN their people to breakdown with only a roll of masking tape at the platter!!! It also doesn't help that shitty platter MUT designs (did someone say STRONG) don't allow sufficient space on the MUT to place a splicer, thereby ENCOURAGING the use of masking tape.  |  IP: Logged Carl Martin Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1424 From: Oakland, CA, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 07-10-2006 02:17 AM                        hey, on one occasion i had to reattach leaders with artist's tape as we were running out of splicing tape--and i did it on the splicer. there are brands of splicing tape out there that are much worse than artist's tape. the somewhat-bad ones come apart on you as you're trying to peel them, and sometimes leave a bit of gunk. the really bad ones (and they get this way over time) stick like crazy, or only come off in the tiniest fragments, or leave amazingly resilient gunk that when it finally does come off, smears itself all over the adjacent frames. how many of you have come across that white tape, where what is white is not the tape itself, but the glue? that's some nasty, nasty stuff.  |  IP: Logged Ron Curran Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 504 From: Springwood NSW Australia Registered: Feb 2006 posted 07-10-2006 02:48 AM                        That white tape is almost as much fun as insulation tape on a print; or ‘magic’ tape or staples. Seen them all. Communication is a wonderful thing. Indie distribs are usually happy to liaise with exhibs in a co-op manner. We break up to the MUT and splice one side. However, if we know the print is going to a changeover house, we tape both sides. If it is going to a platter house that is contactable – and is on our courier “network” - the print will be couriered on 6000ft spools. The less handling the better.  |  IP: Logged Christopher Meredith Expert Film Handler Posts: 126 From: Jackson, MS, USA Registered: Apr 2006 posted 07-10-2006 09:56 AM                        Our theater hardly ever gets anything other than new prints. But in the summer months, we run the Free Family Film Festival where for 9 weeks, we get in 2 different movies per week (one rated G, the other rated PG) and show them for free at 10 AM 3 days a week. They're always older prints, some older than others. So, whoever the previous handlers were of the Rugrats in Paris print I just finished showing, YOU SUCK! One of you decided it would be easier, when breaking down, to just fill the reel and cut the film anywhere rather than breaking the splices at the reel changes. And whoever had it after you was just as dumb. Even though it should have been obvious that you were not attaching tyhe film together at reel changes, you decided it would be best to use solid yellow splice tape AND a thick coat of edge paint which covered the soundtrack and got spots all over the picture area for at least 10 feet. Oh and whoever cut off the tail and never reattached it, you suck too.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 100 pages: 1  2  3  ...  89  90  91  92  93  94  95  ...  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.