Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: The why, how and because of film work...

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 5)

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

Author

Topic: The why, how and because of film work...

Gordon McLeod
Film God

Posts: 9532
From: Toronto Ontario Canada
Registered: Jun 99

posted 01-05-2003 04:30 PM

Open faster than they close must be Kinotons [Smile]

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 01-05-2003 07:43 PM

Gordon, why do you limit yourself to only 2 ID frames per head/tail? 3 or 4 is much better! An old (literally) union projectionist at the very first theater I ever worked at left 4 (FOUR) ID frames for each head and also each tail. I am not joking at all. I guess you can never be too sure.

I think the best solution would be to cut only one frame off and load THAT onto the platter and leave the rest behind on the reel as ID frames.

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000

posted 01-06-2003 08:06 AM

Michael Barry suggested: "In the Dolby Digital track, there are tiny dolby 'double D' symbols inside each data block. Perhaps some of these could be changed over to reel numbers."

A good idea that's been suggested before. The reel number could replace the double-D symbol every fourth perf, to aid as a frame indicator in dark scenes too. At next week's ITEA Projection Seminar in LA, I'll ask some of the folks from Dolby (Ioan Allen, Ted Costas, Bobby Pinkston) whether it's feasible.

| IP: Logged

John Hazelton
Film Handler

Posts: 42
From: Oakland, CA, USA
Registered: Jun 2001

posted 01-07-2003 08:42 PM

Alex Grasic commented:

quote:
People get so used to the ID frame idea that it just seems easier to cut than peel. Now, Brad, you may want to look away to avoid a heart attack of something but...there were 9...yes count them...9 so-called "ID" frames cut off of EACH HEAD AND TAIL!!

I wouldn't remotely consider those to be reference frames. That's just sloppy build-up/break-down practice. Rather than use the existing splices, people cut further into the picture. I suspect this would have happened whether there were reference frames or not (in fact, I've seen it on prints that had no reference frames). The motivation for this travesty is not the desire to leave a slew of reference frames, but to avoid having to undo and redo a splice.

quote:
I sent this print back within the hour asking for a new one and got one within a couple of hours after that.

I'm happy you could do that, but many of us don't have that option. We're dealing with rep prints that are one-of-a-kind, or there are no quick replacements available.

Brad Miller added:

quote:
I ran a print of "Vacation" several years back and there was about 2 feet of ID frames on each head and tail. Then of course there was a menagerie of masking tape/splicing tape fanfolded mess, where people did not always cut one frame over, but sometimes would skip 3-4 frames.

Again, not a reference frame issue. I can't imagine a situation in which someone deliberately would leave in a 2-foot accordion for 'reference" purposes. You blame reference frames, I blame poor plattering practices. It's laziness or ingnorance, pure and simple.

Brad's idea that it's always possible to figure out which leader goes with what reel is fine in concept, but doesn't always work in practice.

Many of you may not have had to deal with missing/unattached leader, but for some of us, this is a weekly occurance. Some reels have no reference frame, but also have many frames missing, so the soundtrack doesn't match, even on the correct reel. I've received prints that had the leader from one print of the same title shipped with the body from another print, so the trick of matching edge colors wouldn't work (but a reference frame would have). Also, some leaders have an edge color that stops at the first frame of picture, which could mistakenly lead one to believe that the correct leader is the wrong leader. I've also got prints that were broken down with the leader for one reel attached to another. A reference frame would have made that sloppy work obvious.

Also, if you deal with older rep and archival prints, there often isn't an edge color. Further, the edge shine has disappeared due to handling and wear, so that tactic doesn't work.

If you have a hacked up print to prep and little time to do it, those reference frames are a god-send. They are the only way to be absolutely sure that a particular leader belongs to a particular reel, especially without spending a lot of detective time trying to make judgement calls about soundtracks matching. I may run a print once only. If it's not right that one time, there's no chance for me to fix it for later.

However, even having leaders with no reference frame is preferable to getting a print with NO leader at all (which has happened to me on multiple occasions), or only a few of the leaders, loose, in the cans.

As to Steve's concern about the audio being out of sync, that's only an issue for optical, isn't? Digital formats should handle it without error. Any missing frames would have the same problem. Steve, what's your stance on the whole remove/leave-in lab splices debate? I'm not picking a fight, just curious if your feelings about that are informed by the same concerns.

At any rate, I'm firmly in favor of leaving in head and tail reference frames (just one of each). It can potentially help a projectionist down the line more than you can imagine. No knowledgable editor will cut a reel change without taking a 2-3 frame overlap into account. The key here is to get people to consistently use better build-up and break-down practices, to avoid the loss of multiple frames.

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99

posted 01-08-2003 04:15 AM

John, note I said

quote:
"I ran a print of "Vacation" several years back and there was about 2 feet of ID frames on each head and tail. Then of course there was a menagerie of masking tape/splicing tape fanfolded mess, where people did not always cut one frame over, but sometimes would skip 3-4 frames.

Yes, there was a full 2 FEET worth of ID frames that were left fully intact with the leader of the print...and THEN there was a fanfolded mess of ID frames after that.

quote:
Brad's idea that it's always possible to figure out which leader goes with what reel is fine in concept, but doesn't always work in practice.

Yes it does. It ALWAYS works.

quote:
Further, the edge shine has disappeared due to handling and wear, so that tactic doesn't work.

The edge shine is ALWAYS visible no matter how old the print. Get better lighting.

quote:
The key here is to get people to consistently use better build-up and break-down practices, to avoid the loss of multiple frames.

ABSOLUTELY! [Smile]

| IP: Logged

John Hazelton
Film Handler

Posts: 42
From: Oakland, CA, USA
Registered: Jun 2001

posted 01-08-2003 03:49 PM

Thanks for the clarification. I thought you were using "then" as an intensifier, more like someone saying, "It was raining and miserable, then, of course, the that was the week my heater was broken." Not saying the heater broke after it was raining and miserable. I thought you meant the two feet was cut and fan-folded. Sorry about that.

I still think the issue you describe is not one of ID frames, but just sloppiness. I see prints that fade to black at the end of a reel, and the splice is somewhere mid-fade. That isn't a matter of leaving ID frames, it's just someone who couldn't be bothered to find the actual last frame, who rolled back far enough to find an easy frame line to cut on.

The main reason you get fan-folded horribleness is because someone doesn't want to undo an existing splice. They can't go back up into the leader to make a new cut, so they go down into the picture.

quote:
Yes it does. It ALWAYS works.

I'm sorry; I didn't understand your argument the first time. You've convinced me--you're right and I'm wrong. Period.

quote:
Get better lighting.

I don't know of any way it could be any better.

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 01-08-2003 03:54 PM

If you can't see the differences in the reels as the print lays on the platter, the lighting most certainly could be better. I have a pretty low-budget booth, with poor lighting for the most part and I can see each reel without any problems.

| IP: Logged

John Hawkinson
Film God

Posts: 2273
From: Cambridge, MA, USA
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 01-08-2003 04:05 PM

Sometimes a flashlight is the right tool; or at least, the convenient one that's the least effort (kind of like vice grips). Hard to believe everyone doesn't carry one in the booth [ok, this is a deliberate exaggeration].

BTW, John P., Frank Angel suggested the number in the DD before Michael did, in his long post...

--jhawk

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99

posted 01-08-2003 04:51 PM

John Hazleton,

Please leave that kind of sarcasm at the door. There is ALWAYS the magenta edgeprint info that can be used as positive identification. Looking at the analog waves or edge colors are only a couple of additional ways to id leaders to reels. I explained this before, hence there was no reason to say the same thing again. The bottom line though is that it does always work. Now if the projectionist is lazy and won't take the time, then that's another situation.

Also, if you can't see the color difference in older prints, you are not positioning yourself against the refraction of the light off of the surface of the platter. The trick is to set up a light (if existing booth lighting is not sufficient) and move yourself around until you see it. Then you can set up your MUT and/or change your light to suit your needs.

| 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 01-08-2003 05:12 PM

In at least the last 10 years (before that I just don't remember), I've never seen a print that you couldn't see the different reels based on 'edge shine', even while they were lying on a platter with absolutely no light other than the projector lamp 10 feet away (boy does that booth get dark when all the shows end).

If you're using 6000's, you've got it even easier, just hold a flashlight (or other light) behind the reel. Not only can you easily identify reels, you can identify acetate from estar.

| IP: Logged

Jacob Huber
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 172
From: Evansville, IN, USA
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 01-09-2003 12:59 AM

We've got one print right now where there is abolutely no way to tell the reels from one another. The print in question is Wild Thornberrys and somewhere along the film path, the soundtrack side got lightly shredded, just enough to where the print runs fine, but the entire print looks exactly the same, no matter what the light brightness or angle. I believe it had something to do with the terrible angle of our top magazine roller, because the projector would be extremely "hairy" with bluish-purple "hair".

I for one am also with Brad in that AT MOST one frame per reel of ID, as it's not that difficult to use edgeprint ID.

Side note: how many of you actually use cotton gloves while in the booth for normal operation? I feel this would be a vast improvement over bare hand film-handling and save a lot of time since I'm constantly washing my hands (15-20x per shift).

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 01-09-2003 01:32 AM

I don't use gloves and NEVER have to wash my hands unless I need to work on the Simplexes... then it takes days or weeks for the dirt to fade completely from my hands. Actually I do wear the gloves when I work on the machines, as that keeps my hands amazingly clean... and any dirt that does get through washes off easily.

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99

posted 01-09-2003 02:44 AM

Try running the print soundtrack down on the platter for one show and see if you can see the difference between reels. If so, then make a note to whoever runs the final show to do so. However depending on the kind of edge damage, it could make it lay worse, so I would do a test first.

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000

posted 01-09-2003 07:39 AM

Obviously, severe scuffing (or as Jacob Huber termed "shredding") of the film edge during "Film Done Wrong" projection will "erase" the subtle slitter knife cut differences. [Frown]

It also can generate lots of dirt and "hairs" as Jacob notes. [Frown]

Brad is correct, all current prints on 35mm Kodak VISION Color Print film have magenta edgeprint that provides a way to positively match leaders to each reel, since each roll of raw stock has a unique identification code. The only way it wouldn't work would be if different reels of the same print happened to be printed using the same roll of raw stock (very unlikely). Of course, if there is a lab splice, different magenta codes will be on each side of the splice, since the splice joins different raw stock rolls.

| IP: Logged

John Hawkinson
Film God

Posts: 2273
From: Cambridge, MA, USA
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 01-09-2003 11:42 AM

Not everyone uses Kodak. In particular, Fuji doesn't have a useful edgeprint that varies from reel to reel.

We use cotton gloves while hand-checking and in a few other weird cases (running loops...), but that's about it. There's not much point in wearing gloves just to handle the leaders.

You'll see a lack of consensus as to whether gloves are necessary when hand-checking. I'm a firm believer. They keep the oil off the print and reduce the possibility of scratches/cuts to your hands; I also find they increase my sensitivity. Some others believe that the dirt/oil on the edges of the print is insignificant, and prefer the the barehanded approach. I think it has been asserted that gloves may serve to move dirt around, though I don't think there is much credence to this that assertion.

--jhawk

| 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

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.