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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » CIR splicers (Page 3)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Author Topic: CIR splicers Peter Hall Master Film Handler Posts: 314 From: London, UK Registered: Dec 2000 posted 09-14-2003 08:03 AM                        Joe - If a CIR needs adjustment every splice, then I must have missed something every Thursday night in (say) an 8 plex here - 8 film changes, 8 sets of adverts, perhaps 16 trailer changes and countless policy logos and leaders - my calculations are 100 splices - are the operators here really adjusting the thing 100 times a night ? As said, it's what you get used to. Sites with them like them. Price wise they are around £GBP270 here - not sure about the NuMades - how does this compare to the states ? Has anyone used the Indian copies that CFS sell ?  |  IP: Logged Darren Briggs Master Film Handler Posts: 371 From: York, UK Registered: Dec 2001 posted 09-14-2003 03:44 PM                        Like any slicer, you must clean it regular, and youll find 99% of UK cinemas use CIR, we have 3 16mm ones, 2 35mm and 1 70mm at my site, all work beautifull. Keep em clean, replace blade once a year if that! Darren  |  IP: Logged Pete Naples Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1565 From: Dunfermline, Scotland Registered: Feb 2001 posted 09-14-2003 04:24 PM                     Am I alone in being somewhat bored with the regular ongoing debate on these things? It seems to be Nuemade is king in the US, CIR is king in the rest of the known world. Forget all about the cheap imitations of both splicers that surface from time to time. The bottom line is that if you like Neumade, great, if you like CIR, great. As long as either does the job for you what the heck does it matter? I've used both and found both perfectly capable of producing good joins. Now if you want to see a splicer that really sucks, try a Strong! Best use I've ever found for those is as a door stop (seriously).  |  IP: Logged Phil Hill I love my cootie bug Posts: 7595 From: Hollywood, CA USA Registered: Mar 2000 posted 09-14-2003 04:43 PM                  "The rest of the world." Oh PLEEZE! CIR: Only in Europe and that's only cuz Italy is there. In the US, it's Neumade cuz they are here. The rest of the world fends for themselves. One thing I do agree about, this discussion is BORING! >>> Phil  |  IP: Logged Antonio Marcheselli Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1260 From: Florence, Italy Registered: Mar 2000 posted 09-14-2003 05:28 PM                        Brad & co. I use CIR splicer since my first splice. Reading this discussion I thought on my way to use that splice in these years, first one-screen and then multiplexes. In the one-screen only there are time to do everything, I modified the splicer as I read on this website and I always made splices like you said in the tips section. I set the pins so that with an uncut print on it they don't push or pull the print. Splices were perfect but I always noted that little jump on the screen at splices. The problem could be corrected using a particular order of overlapping while splicing but this method cannot be applied on multiplexes... CIR splicers are not particular precise cutting the prints so my primary problem was the "POP"s in the sound between trailer, logos and so on. So this is my decision: make overlapped splices (using the pins...) at trailers/logo splices and do perfect, not overlapped splices between reels where Dolby can compensate for 1 frame and, usually, doesn't drop in analog. However, if kept clean, CIR splicers do their job. I never used Neumade. Other theaters of my chain has them. If distance between pins cannot be adjusted the only way to overlap parts is to adjust the blades, right? Bye A  |  IP: Logged William Hooper Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1879 From: Mobile, AL USA Registered: Jun 99 posted 09-15-2003 12:44 AM                        quote: Actually I am suprised that proper research wasn't done (read the manual that came with it) as to the purpose of the adjustable pins. It is for shrunken film not producing an overlap I've used it for that intended function often. It's great for theaters that run old films. A big problem though is that sometimes the film is so shrunken that the *size* of the registration pins is too large & would deform the perfs. What splicer would work best for those prints? [/quote]read the manual that came with it[/quote] Of the billions of CIR splicers I've seen, I've never seen a manual for one anywhere. There's even not one in the Film-Tech manuals section. It doesn't take long to figure out what those knobs do, though.  |  IP: Logged Peter Hall Master Film Handler Posts: 314 From: London, UK Registered: Dec 2000 posted 09-15-2003 01:11 AM                        Re personal preference Slightly off topic, but would anyone like to comment on which side of the road to drive on ? Here we ALWAYS drive on the left - I know a lot of guys in the states say that they have had some degree of success driving on the right, but I've been driving on the left for years and can safely say that it's the only way to go. Not wanting to be dismissive, I tried driving on the right here (was Oxford St on a Saturday the best starting point I ask myself ?) - sure, you still get from A to B but you have to adjust your driving (sometimes quite substantially, especially on freeways) for every oncoming car. ALso you would have to make good use of your rear view mirror as all the road signs seem to face the wrong way and seem to be placed in a retrospective position. Mind you, a positive is that the guy in the toll booth doesnt see you coming and often there's no barrier on the right hand side of the road, but beware - can be a hell of a mess if there's a queue at the toll plaza. Perhaps someone could send me om a brand new, fully aligned right hand side of the road in what would be considered "perfect alignment and working order" and I'll drive on it for 2 weeks and I will do a re-review. However I have seen far too many accidents caused by people driving on the right and not one of them made an acceptable trip to my standards. (I have a feeling the reason so many people in the US use the right hand side is because of the price (as above, no road tolls), for we all know "cheaper is always better".) As far as I am concerned, driving on the right sucks and should be consigned to the rubbish bin. Anyone who follows this practice would have to adjust his or her alignment each and every manouvre.  |  IP: Logged Philippe Laude Film Handler Posts: 79 From: Longueville, Belgium Registered: Jul 99 posted 09-15-2003 01:32 AM                     Pete, I agree with you 100 %. See my re- review of the Strong splicer.  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 09-15-2003 01:33 AM                     Peter, I think you're stretching things a bit there seeking that analogy. If I was to start driving on the left side of the road here in the US, there would be an accident almost immediately. This is something that I have no control over. In the US we HAVE to drive on the right side. However, we do not have to buy a CIR splicer. I'll stretch too. So let me see if I get this right. Your basic point is that people in the US should buy US products and people outside of the US should buy a product not made in the US, just because. So no more Kinoton or Cinemeccanica equipment should be brought into the US and no more Christie or Strong equipment should be shipped out of the US, again just because. Never mind which equipment is actually the superior product. That doesn't matter because the choice of equipment is based upon someone's location on the planet and whatever someone is used to in a given geographical location is "the best", because that's just how it is, regardless of the level of quality that the item really is when compared to a competing product. In reality I think it is a little more straightforward than that. If someone learns to run the booth and does it for 5, 10, maybe 20 years and has a CIR splicer the entire time, the level of quality splice that can be had with that tool is what that person associates with a quality splice. Everyone has different standards. (People's differing standards are easily seen on the current debate about how good/bad the "Once Upon a Time in Mexico" prints look.) I say this because I have yet to see a splice from a CIR splicer that I consider to be a quality one. That's why I asked Gordon to make me a splice on a new CIR with a new stretch of film at ShoWest a couple of years ago. Like I said before, it was not as good as one that can be had from a Neumade. Either the splicer is indeed inferior or you are saying that Gordon does not know how to properly use the CIR splicer as does no one else in the US. Which is it?  |  IP: Logged Peter Hall Master Film Handler Posts: 314 From: London, UK Registered: Dec 2000 posted 09-15-2003 03:19 AM                        Brad - Nothing to do with National boundaries really - sentiments of my post really "different strokes for different folks". What do you call an "acceptable" splice ? Surely it's one that holds together ..  |  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 09-15-2003 02:24 PM                        quote: Of the billions of CIR splicers I've seen, I've never seen a manual for one anywhere. There's even not one in the Film-Tech manuals section. The manual for the CIR splicer is listed under CIR splicer manual in the Equipment Manual Warehouse section of the site.  |  IP: Logged William Hooper Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1879 From: Mobile, AL USA Registered: Jun 99 posted 09-16-2003 12:52 AM                        And there it is. Thanks, Daryl. Hey, that model doesn't have the little knob on the right for withdrawing the right-side registration pins!  |  IP: Logged Leo Enticknap Film God Posts: 7474 From: Loma Linda, CA Registered: Jul 2000 posted 09-16-2003 01:34 AM                        What it boils down to is the quality on-screen (or in my case, telecine transfer) in the short-term and the physical effect on the film element in the long-term. As far as the latter goes, I'd say that the type of tape you use (and how fresh or old it is) probably makes a bigger difference than what type of tape joiner you use. I have only ever used CIR as far as tape joining goes (as far as I can remember) and have found them minorly annoying, but not a major headache. You do seem to need to take them apart and clean the perforating block, base plate and U-blade quite often. The only other thing I'd say is that if you are ever working with anything other than polyester (i.e. shrinkproof) elements, only use the CIR versions with adjustable registration pins. On even a slightly shrunken acetate or nitrate element, I find it very difficult to apply the tape on the second side using a fixed-pin CIR without either getting air bubbles or causing perf damage. Another plus point for CIR is that they make 8mm (standard and super) and 9.5mm versions of their tape joiner: obviously not an issue for people in cinemas but for an archive dealing with small-gauge they're incredibly useful if you want to join elements into one long roll (for telecine, usually) and then undo the joins without any film damage. The only alternative is cement (which we use when preparing elements for lab printing, to avoid anything of the join being visible on the dupe), which effectively destroys two frames per join made.  |  IP: Logged Dave Callaghan Film Handler Posts: 60 From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada Registered: Jan 2003 posted 09-16-2003 02:34 AM                     quote: I've used it for that intended function often. It's great for theaters that run old films. A big problem though is that sometimes the film is so shrunken that the *size* of the registration pins is too large & would deform the perfs. What splicer would work best for those prints? Years ago, I replaced the squared-corner registration pins on my CIR splicer with circular pins. I believe they were intended to splice mag-optical, fox hole prints without causing perf strain. I haven't had to splice any old acetate prints lately, but I believe the round pins either minimized or eliminated the damage, depending on the state of the print. It's been a long time, but I think in some cases, I also resorted to removing some of the round pins in cases of extreme shrinkage. Strained perfs away from the splice were eliminated, but I'm not aware that anyone has come up with a solution for the perforator.  |  IP: Logged Christian Appelt Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 505 From: Frankfurt, Germany Registered: Dec 2001 posted 09-17-2003 11:30 AM                     William, I have used a CIR splicer for 35mm mag ( smaller, square "fox hole" type) for extremely shrunken prints with KS standard perf. It worked fine, no problems in projection and even printing. There exists special equipment to handle shrunken film, from splicers to whole printing or editing machines, made by the french CTM company (formerly called Debrie, maker of camera and lab equipment). More about CTM: www.ctmsolutions.com www.ctmdebrie.com  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

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.