my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » Would you have removed these lab splices? (Page 4)

This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5

Author Topic: Would you have removed these lab splices? Mark J. Marshall Film God Posts: 3188 From: New Castle, DE, USA Registered: Aug 2002 posted 12-17-2002 01:36 PM                    I say the lab should splice the smaller rolls of film together and use that for trailers - then, yes, throw the ones that actually receive the splice away. Or, pay for the shipping to send them to the theater. I'll be delighted to throw them away. I can't stand lab splices. If they aren't the definition of a huge distraction, I don't know what is.  |  IP: Logged Steve Kraus Film God Posts: 4094 From: Chicago, IL, USA Registered: May 2000 posted 12-17-2002 02:45 PM                    J/SMPTE carried a description some years back of high volume printing and the lab...I think it was an English lab...would monitor splice location when joining raw stock and make sure they fall on the frameline. Of course that requires winding through the film which may be an otherwise unnecessary function if rolls are joined on the fly with elevators etc. How about this: The manufacturer warrants that the rolls are cut to a whole number of frames (4 perf multiples). Perhaps they already do this. If the lab removes the beginnings and ends of rolls (not sure if they do) they do so in whole frame increments. Printers get threaded so these joins fall on the frame lines. That doesn't eliminate the glitch entirely especially on Scope but it certainly makes having them go by much less of an irritant.  |  IP: Logged Christopher Seo Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 530 From: Los Angeles, CA Registered: Jun 99 posted 12-17-2002 10:29 PM                     quote: I don't remember if "new" dye-transfer prints are printed in 1000' sections or not. Anyone? No, the recently revived (and possibly yet again defunct) dye-transfer process is printing in 2000' rolls. In fact, I was quite impressed with the print of "Apocalypse Now Redux" I ran... not a single lab splice in all 10 reels. Kudos to Francis Coppola and Vittorio Storaro for a film print done right. I wonder if it would be so hard to keep track of the rawstock frameline with even a simple footage counter? In fact we don't need a footage counter, just a sprocket with markings every four perfs. Since we're talking about loop elevators, I assume the lab always leaves the film path threaded to avoid the time-consuming hassle of rethreading. This might also explain why labs still splice the rawstock even if only a few feet are being saved-- the short end would have to be unthreaded and a new roll rethreaded, anathema to a lab cranking out 8,000 prints of the new "Potter" flick. (Now that I think about it more, if the roll runs out just before the reel finishes printing, which may be either direction, you're out of luck anyway, and even if you had calculated in advance, what could you do-- the "short" end would in fact be nearly the length of a reel!) Anyway, when initially threading the printer, it would seem relatively easy to establish a frameline reference between framing sprockets mounted at the printer (or framelines on the contact printer's printing sprocket itself, perhaps?) and in the darkroom where the splices are made. The lab technician would thereafter know exactly where the framelines were going to occur in the rawstock. Of course, these ideas are speculatory and I too would love to see exactly how it's done at a major lab. One question in particular: with a large print run at a loop-elevator-equipped lab, how is the printing negative handled? Is it run reel-to-reel, with a technician having to rethread the neg for each new copy, perhaps in a bidirectional fashion? Or is the neg itself in some kind of loop cabinet?  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 12-17-2002 10:48 PM                     Seems to me that if Kodak was to bring back the tiny hole between perforations on the inboard side (think 70mm here) that making lab splices on the frameline would be relatively easy. How about it John?  |  IP: Logged Steve Kraus Film God Posts: 4094 From: Chicago, IL, USA Registered: May 2000 posted 12-17-2002 11:35 PM                    Strictly speaking you wouldn't even need a sprocket to track it as this can probably be done with IR sensors. Brad that's a great idea but it won't happen for the same reasons they got rid of the 70mm index hole. And it's a shame too because of its obvious advantages not just with raw stock but tracking frame lines on black or clear processed film as well.  |  IP: Logged John Hawkinson Film God Posts: 2273 From: Cambridge, MA, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 12-18-2002 12:14 AM                     If it's not a solution for scope, it's not a solution. Frame-registering the lab splices just means you have to pull two frames instead of one. --jhawk  |  IP: Logged Steve Kraus Film God Posts: 4094 From: Chicago, IL, USA Registered: May 2000 posted 12-18-2002 07:04 AM                    It's a solution in the sense that while it's still a glitch it's not shockingly disruptive like it is across the middle of the frame.  |  IP: Logged John Pytlak Film God Posts: 9987 From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922 Registered: Jan 2000 posted 12-18-2002 07:47 AM                        Brad asked: "Seems to me that if Kodak was to bring back the tiny hole between perforations on the inboard side (think 70mm here) that making lab splices on the frameline would be relatively easy. How about it John?" Perforating that tiny reference hole was a source of increased dirt, and a primary reason it was eliminated for 70mm. But even if only perforated along one side of the film, bi-directional printing would place it in conflict with the Dolby Digital track half of the time. The labs using loop printers with feed-on elevators DID try to index the lab splices to the framelines, but in the dark and with only about 30 seconds to make the splice, it was very easy to have an extra perf of slack while pulling the raw stock onto the splicer throw the indexing off, even with a metering sprocket. When making the splice, the operator discards a short length of the outer convolution of the raw stock roll, and leaves a bit on the core of the roll just used, so "exact to the frame" lengths from Kodak wouldn't solve the problem. To answer Christopher Seo's question --- the labs that are using loop printers thread both the picture and sound negatives into a loop cabinet with enough capacity for a full reel's length.  |  IP: Logged Jean-Michel Grin Expert Film Handler Posts: 222 From: Geneva & Lausanne, Switzerland Registered: Jul 2002 posted 01-15-2003 02:08 AM                        Some examples of Lab Splices in LOTR2. The projectionist who's handled this movie for a press presentation, din't remove it ! What a shame Bye, Jean-Michel  |  IP: Logged Jack Ondracek Film God Posts: 2348 From: Port Orchard, WA, USA Registered: Oct 2002 posted 01-15-2003 03:01 AM                        quote: ...from Steve: It's a solution in the sense that while it's still a glitch it's not shockingly disruptive like it is across the middle of the frame. Except for the hugely annoying pop that these splices cause in analog sound systems.  |  IP: Logged Scott Norwood Film God Posts: 8146 From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas) Registered: Jun 99 posted 01-15-2003 05:23 AM                        Is it just me or do lab splices always seem to look worse on Fuji stock than on Kodak stock? I sent Brad two examples of really horrible lab splices over a month ago and he _still_ hasn't scanned and posted them. :razz:  |  IP: Logged Stephen Furley Film God Posts: 3059 From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England Registered: May 2002 posted 01-15-2003 06:55 AM                     Jack wrote: quote: Except for the hugely annoying pop that these splices cause in analog sound systems. The sound shouldn't be a problem if you bloop the splice. Whether a splice, mid frame or otherwise, is better or worse than removing frames from the print is debatable; I would be very reluctant to do anything irreversible to a print in my possesion without permission from the owners. Is any guidance given by the distributers on this matter?  |  IP: Logged Kenneth Wuepper Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1026 From: Saginaw, MI, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 01-15-2003 07:03 AM                     Just "bloop" the splice! All of our Local 35 IATSE projectionists were required to bloop the sound tracks when making cement splices way back in the dark ages of mono sound. KEN  |  IP: Logged Thomas Procyk Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1842 From: Royal Palm Beach, FL, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 01-15-2003 12:49 PM                     Our theater still runs mono. =TMP=  |  IP: Logged John Hawkinson Film God Posts: 2273 From: Cambridge, MA, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 01-15-2003 04:46 PM                     Jean-Michel, it looks like instead of removing those lab splices, a piece of tape was put over them -- even worse! Now not only is there the disruption of the lab splice, there's the disruption of the focus plane from the splicing tape...to no benefit. And in the bottom right frame, it appears that the not only was the frame with the lab splice removed, but the frame above it as well --jhawk  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5

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.