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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » The why, how and because of film work... (Page 2)

This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6

Author Topic: The why, how and because of film work... Ken Lackner Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1907 From: Atlanta, GA, USA Registered: Sep 2001 posted 01-02-2003 09:22 AM                     quote: Cover cues with splicing tape?? No, you first attatch a piece of splicing tape, and then put the cue over it. This is because, assuming you have quality tape, it is much easier to remove than cue tape and leaves no residue. But I agree that it would be distracting.  |  IP: Logged Richard Miller Film Handler Posts: 33 From: Lafayette, IN, USA Registered: Aug 2002 posted 01-02-2003 11:20 AM                     I found a really good reason for leaving 1 ID frame when I recieved a print of "Bowling for Columbine." Apparently whoever broke it down didn't care how we got, just that we recieved it. They took a 7 reel movie and condensed it down to 6 reels. Reels 4, 5, 6, and 7 were put on 3 reels. To make matters worse they were spliced whereever the reel was full and not a single head or tail was attached. Without the ID frame, we sould never have gotten back to the proper reel sizes since they used 4 different kinds of tape and had apparently broken the film at least 10 times. I hate watching splces running through the middle of a scene.  |  IP: Logged Thomas Procyk Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1842 From: Royal Palm Beach, FL, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 01-02-2003 11:56 AM                     quote: This industry should devise a way to repeat the last couple of frames in the leader to nip this one once and for all. I remember from my early projection training days that I was told that "...The last frame before the leader is actually a duplicate of the frame just before it. This is called an ID frame. We leave them on the leaders to blah blah blah..." It was also mentioned that, "Cutting off two frames is pushing it, three is really bad, and four is inexcusable." I learned about a year later that the "duplicate frame" thing was untrue. Especially when it was a scene of someone walking across the frame or some other movement. You could clearly see the movement continued on the last frame, and was NOT a duplicate of the previous one. If I didn't leave an ID frame in the current booth I work at (or build a trailer head with clear tape instead of opaque, or not use edge-mark tape...) I would get my head bit off by one of the hacks going to break down a print with their trusty roll of masking tape and nothing else. =TMP=  |  IP: Logged Tim Reed Better Projection Pays Posts: 5246 From: Northampton, PA Registered: Sep 1999 posted 01-02-2003 12:42 PM                       quote: the reference frame isn't for the benefit of the first person to break down the print--it is for the benefit of the next theatre which runs that print, Amen. It is for "positive identification" of the leaders and, hence, the reel numbers/order for the next guy. Whether through incompetence or apathy, believe it or not, there are some people who don't re-attach the correct leaders to the correct reels (at least that was the case when I was an operator). On more than one occasion, I'd made-up a movie with the reels in the wrong order, because some Joe Biddy didn't bother to get it right when he shipped it out, and it had no intact ID frames.  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 01-02-2003 12:44 PM                     quote: Without the ID frame, we sould never have gotten back to the proper reel sizes since they used 4 different kinds of tape and had apparently broken the film at least 10 times. Big deal. Just look at the film on the platter with a light reflecting onto it. You will be able to see where the reel changes are. Now some of these could be lab splices within a reel, but again no biggie. Just breakdown and stop at each light change and see if it is the reel change. If it has the same picture on either side of the splice, then it is definitely not a reel change. If it has different pictures, look back into the tail of the reel a couple of feet for cue marks if the edge colors aren't obvious enough.  |  IP: Logged John Pytlak Film God Posts: 9987 From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922 Registered: Jan 2000 posted 01-02-2003 12:51 PM                        The difference in sidewall "shine" you see between reels is due to subtle differences in the slitter knives. Kodak slits 38 35mm strips out of one wide roll of print film, so the chances of two adjacent reels coming from the same slit are only 1 in 38: http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/h1/sizesP.shtml#p The key to seeing the shine difference is good lighting --- a small spotlight or bright flashlight at a grazing angle makes the difference easier to see.  |  IP: Logged Alex Grasic Film Handler Posts: 90 From: Toronto, ON, Canada Registered: Jul 2002 posted 01-02-2003 04:14 PM                     Well it's good to see that I have ONE person who agrees with me here on the no ID frame concept. I'm absolutely against ID frames because every time I get a hand-me-down print there are more than one frame cut...I've seen as many as 8 cut off from each head and tail. To me it seems that people are either a) stuck on old ways which are not necessarily good ways or b) too lazy to peel tape. I laughed when one of the other projectionists at my theatre said that breaking down a print with ID frames on the leaders made the job easier. This coming from a guy who spends the majority of his day just watching the movies rather than working. No one ever said this job was supposed to be easy....did they?  |  IP: Logged Gordon McLeod Film God Posts: 9532 From: Toronto Ontario Canada Registered: Jun 99 posted 01-02-2003 04:40 PM                     If you are like sometheatre with your print delivery time is 650pm for 7pm shows you do not have time to be dealing with Is it right questions but put it on the bench check the head splice and ID frame and put it on the machine and then check reel2 head splice and ID frame. If the ID frame matchs then the odds are in favor of CO cues being present from the lab Bottom line is the next theatre is entitled to a guarentee of a good print. It is often that I will open the cans and find no bands or heads or tails just the ends taped down and the leaders all loose The recomended industry standard is that ID frames are left on the leader. Those who choose not to are the ones bucking the industry standard. Also most company policys are for there to be an ID frame left on leaders  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 01-02-2003 05:12 PM                     Gordon, I'm going to be a tad bit sarcastic here because you keep making this exact same post and never back it up. Industry standard you say? Yeah well I also thought industry standard was to return prints without scratches and damage? Surely any bible of "industry standards" would have "thou shalt not damage film whilst it is in your possession" somewhere in there. Why do you even bother quoting the all powerful "industry standard" document that does not exist? Who exactly published this book of "industry standards"? Just how old and out of date is this fantasy publication? And more importantly, why have I never heard or seen it? Maybe it's because it doesn't really exist. Then again, maybe it's because the damn thing is so outdated it isn't worth the time spent reading it. Yeah, whatever, heck it isn't even worth my time trying to figure out where you are quoting this from. If I am sent a print of a movie and I don't like the quality, it is not every time I am able to get a replacement print. Likewise if you get a print one day without ID frames you may not be able to whine about it and get a replacement print. Sometimes you have to show what the studio sends you. Personally I will laugh when the day comes that I hear of a theater in Canada that rejected a flawless print solely because there were no ID frames and the operator was too lazy to get in there and do his job. Yeah, I'm sure the studio will really be happy to back you up on that one. That would be sort of like if I was to reject a print because half of the reels came tails out and I am just too important of a person and my time is just too damn valuable to have to deal with the rewinding of a reel! It's all part of the job. If the studios really want ID frames cut, then show me some documentation from the studios. Also, they should print that ID frame somewhere on the leaders if they were really worried about it. Until that day, please, please, please stop this whining. Cutting off ID frames is cutting out part of the movie. It is no different than the teenage projectionists who cut out random frames from a print to sell on eBay as "film cells". There are still bits of the movie missing. You know only ONE TIME in close to 20 years have I received a print that had the wrong leaders on the wrong reels. ONCE! (Shame on whoever broke down that Two Towers screening print at Cinemark.) And it was painfully obvious as I was building up the print too as the color edges did not match up. It was after I noticed this that I actually bothered to look at the ID frames that were left. Regardless, I would not have needed the frames to figure it out. This isn't rocket science. All it takes is two eyes and a little bit of paying attention. Of course under your reasoning, I guess I should have turned to the New Line people and flat out refused to run that print. After all, it had ID frames cut off of the film. Same reasoning, different logic. Let me give you another way to look at this. Remember the "industry standard" when platters first were introduced was to thread from the payout platter to the projector, then thread the projector and motor the film down onto the floor, then finish threading the film path. Then someone came along and changed the "industry standard" by saying "that's stupid, because it would be much simpler to thread the entire platter's path, then thread the projector". Great, a nice timesaver was introduced and many of the better operators who were not locked into believing that there was no possible way that there could be a better way to do things improved their operation from it. So now I come along and say "that's stupid, for the leader is getting onto the floor which transfers dirt onto the print and projector", and I have been pushing "bottom up" threading now for over 10 years. But according to your hardlocked "industry standard" rules, people should ignore my recommendation and continue to dump the leaders onto the floor during threading. Oh please!  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 01-02-2003 05:41 PM                        What is with people and ID frames? You'd think the world was going to end if they didn't have them. On a used print that already has many splices throughout the reel, I can certainly understand ONE frame. Also, if you are using an ID frame that means you EXPECT to have a film break during the films' run and you will need the ID frame to distinguish splices from one another. Not very much confidence in your own booth, I must say. In all the times I have been working projection, I have never received a print that had the wrong heads and tails attached to it. Not even at my current art theater, where 65% of our prints are used!  |  IP: Logged Tim Reed Better Projection Pays Posts: 5246 From: Northampton, PA Registered: Sep 1999 posted 01-02-2003 06:11 PM                       quote: Industry standard you say? I may be talking out of turn, but I think he means SOP (i.e., standard operating procedure), not necessarily a hard and fast rule, but something that has been done over the years as a preventive measure. I, for one, was always a little bit easier in my mind, after building up a print that had intact ID frames. Joe, try working at a drive-in! You'll receive 'em out of order sooner or later.  |  IP: Logged Jack Ondracek Film God Posts: 2348 From: Port Orchard, WA, USA Registered: Oct 2002 posted 01-02-2003 07:32 PM                        quote: from John P.: The difference in sidewall "shine" you see between reels is due to subtle differences in the slitter knives. Thanks for that, John. I always wondered.  |  IP: Logged Paul G. Thompson The Weenie Man Posts: 4718 From: Mount Vernon WA USA Registered: Nov 2000 posted 01-02-2003 08:38 PM                     I support the idea of one frame left behind on both the heads and tails. It is just another means of cross-check while assembling a print. All too often I get a second run print heads up. Without an ID frame, there is no way I know of to determine reel 3 from 4 (or whatever) unless the tail matches. If there is no ID frame on the heads or tails, you are !!!! If the wrong leader is on the wrong reel (which happens way too much) and it has an id frame left behind, there is a better chance of determining what reel it actually is. I actually hate building a second run print because of some doofus upstream could care less about what he/she is doing.  |  IP: Logged Gordon McLeod Film God Posts: 9532 From: Toronto Ontario Canada Registered: Jun 99 posted 01-02-2003 10:07 PM                     Actually until 4 years ago we had a theatres act that did mandate that a ID frame was left attached and also all heads and tails must be attached with with tape on each side. The complete theatres act was basically tossed out regretably and now there is no minimum requirement for operators anymore and print destruction is a rule. Until the demise of actually trained and licensed projectionists prints in circulation in Ontario were always in good shape and usually when prints were needed for foregn markets they raided the depot here first And my demand for id frames on a used print is no more different than the comment I will reject a print over 3 lab splices  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 01-02-2003 10:15 PM                     No Gordon, I NEVER said I would reject a reel if it had 3 lab splices in it. I said that THE ODDS ARE that there will be a legitimate lab defect in a reel that contains 3 lab splices that would warrant a reject. Even still, that defective reel has to be played until a new one arrives. Your stance is more along the lines of "fuck it, I won't waste my time". If you are going to quote, do it right. Don't twist it around to try and find a valid argument for your stance. I've never heard of this "theaters act". A Canadian thing perhaps? Even at that, it sounds like whoever wrote it was more interested in simplifying the projectionist's job so he can be more lazy. Perhaps you would be so kind as to email me a copy so I can peruse the entire bible to see if there is anything good in there? Paul, the best all-around compromise of which I wouldn't be too opposed to is to always leave precisely ONE (two or more gets the death penalty) ID frame on the HEAD leader of every reel...but NO ID frames on the tail. The idea here is that ANYONE can figure out that the leader is on the correct reel by the head leader's ID frame and with that logic there is no reason at all to chop a frame from the tail. Also, that helps changeover houses in their timing by not losing frames that they are relying on for a smooth changeover. Again, this is the only compromise that I have ever heard pitched that actually makes sense.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6

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.